Chivalry is dead because capitalist societies tend towards atomisation. Feminism in capitalist society is opposed to chivalry because it exists downstream from bourgeois social relations.
Chivalry is dead because capitalist societies tend towards atomisation. Feminism in capitalist society is opposed to chivalry because it exists downstream from bourgeois social relations.
Last edited by xerxe; 07-28-2019 at 06:54 PM.
what I mean is that when women are rightfully angry for what they have to go through, they're labelled "misandrists". advancing all sorts of excuses for why what they do is wrong and pathetic and counter-productive to the female cause.
men who get angry for comparably minor offences, unrelated to a real gender discrimination, and often explainable by putting things in their context (is it so bad that a particular women organization doesn't welcome men in need? or that mothers are favored in child custody when they're usually the ones left to watch after the kids? that a party discriminated for centuries revendicates their rights? or that a woman shouts at a policeman when the same is done by everyone in every protest? ), should instead have the right to be taken for valid? why so?
I usually brush off all notions when it comes to people being representatives of their own gender. So I'm gonna continue to just laugh at every desperate attempts towards making me feel less manly just because I don't care of being the cuck of humanity (approval seeking, majority of people).
In general as long as people care it continues. PGTOW (people going their own way) FTW. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. The last phase is just around the corner.
Measuring you right now
@ooo I don't label women as misandrists just for being angry over the unique injustices they face. But it was you who literally tried to justify hate for men: "most hate for men belongs to the feminist extremists (and I think, rightly so[…]" (post #51 in this thread).
Justified anger is one thing, hate is another - no matter what gender you are. By feeding hate the resistance is only going to grow stronger.
I don't think anyone here is speaking against that. Nice strawman though.
Lolll I'm all for ptgow, but does it involve resentful abstinence? I will support it either way.
yeah, and I keep saying the same thing. women have their rights to be angry, and this can shamefully become misandy, in some occasions. still, I find the motives behind that hate as somewhat justified, even if I don't agree with its expression. and this, equates to almost nothing what men go through because of their gender (=fundamental point that sets the level for what is justified anger and what is instead complain addressing the wrong culprits).
aha, and children organizations should take care of the profugees dying in the sea, and black people organizations should help white pregnant women, and homeless shelters are supposed to give suicide assistance.. why not.Ideally, everyone should be able to receive support no matter their gender.
on a case by case basis things are treated case by case.Seriously…? You're telling me that on a case by case basis, women should be favoured over men when it comes to child custody just because otherwomen are left to watch after the kids in other cases?
yeah, let's just ignore the discourses that equate female treatment with the countrymen that worked for the barons, dukes, or wtv was mentioned.I don't think anyone here is speaking against that. Nice strawman though.
ah.I don't know what you're referring to right now, but if someone complains over someone shouting at a policeman in a protest they just sound like a whingebag to me.
Regarding anger as it's pointed out in gender politics advocates and similar groups, however, I've seen "angry men" frequently cited as though it somehow made groups like MRAs less legitimate. Most of the hit pieces on the MRM point this out as though the anger were a flaw or something to be feared.
I'd like to see some studies on journalistic presentation of these groups, as their anger or perceived anger tends to be presented as a drawback and cause for concern.
Not dismissing what you wrote or the study you shared, just articulating something very noticeable in much of the journalistic coverage of MRAs. It's sort of an added dynamic that I don't think that study really acknowledges (not saying it should have to), and so might be misleading to cite something of that nature in the context of gender advocacy groups.
Feminism is the criticism of the injustices and the corruptions of male-dominated power.
MRA is the criticism of that criticism... which is pretty much the affirmation of male-dominated power.
If the MRAs really honestly wanted to protect the rights of men, then they would be feminists, because feminism is really about criticisms of unjust power structure and unjust exercises of power that is mainly dominated by men.
It is true that both men and women alike at the bottom rung of the hierarchy are victimized by the current power structure, in which the top hierarchy is mainly comprised of male-dominated power. The feminist critique of this power is from the perspective of the realities of female victimization.
But the MRAs don't really care about that, as they don't talk about this from the same perspective, because they can't criticize male-dominated power. So the MRAs are either afraid of losing their male privilege, they somehow just don't like that women are leading the cause (but have no proposal for a better alternative themselves) or they're afraid that they'd be targets of the feminist "purge".
Feminists have all the right reasons to be skeptical of MRAs and feel that they're actively working against them, because that's exactly what they're doing. They're the enemies of the cause. They want to dismantle equality in the guise of being for equality. They want to bring back or retain the corrupt and unequal male-dominated power structure.
Feminism isn't just "a women's movement", it's a rational moral philosophy or a rational ethical system that is out to replace the current power structure, and it's about making a completely new power structure that works for all instead of just a few at the top.
Ironically, it just so happens that some of these misanthropes often feel like they're unfairly accused of misandry. Or in other words, people can be quick to accuse others of "sexism" or "racism", when in reality some people are just assholes.
Among LXEs i've known i've had several talk to me for the first time (and bring to my attention, many years ago) about the plight of various minorities (minorities in many ways, btw), and showed great acceptance to things and people outwith the 'norm" (aka outwith the 'rules').
"Inasmuch as it is nothing but pure communicability, every face, even the most noble and beautiful, is always suspended on the edge of an abyss"
When did the gender war start or were relations between the sexes always this bitter and adversarial..?
Last edited by xerxe; 07-28-2019 at 07:09 PM.
<--- this "protest song" is called "I Hate You, You Fucking Man" and it's about how they're strong women who will "rip men to shreds"
not to mention the charming Zara Larsson's tweets about how she hates men... if feminists think this will make men who care about equality feel positive towards their cause, they're wrong
I mean sure we could relativise the term misandry if we want and just call it "misanthropy", but that could go for misogyny as well in that case. I find it dubious
In other words, I'm less likely to think that "so-in-so was rude -- i guess they're a racist who hates black people" as opposed to something like "so-in-so was rude -- who knows maybe they're going through a rough time".
Last edited by Deprecator; 07-29-2019 at 01:03 AM.
But there has always been anti-feminist sentiments ever since there was a such thing as feminism:
Yep, they've been saying that the feminists are nothing but man-hating, emasculating misandrists ever since there were fucking suffragettes who only wanted the right to vote. So what we're seeing now is not really new, but this whole inceldom and MRA movements seem to be taking turns for the worst and turning into an even nastier and darker misogyny. They're ramping up the tactics to be even more dirty and nasty. Basically, they're literally terrorists.
Like with anything, we're going to need a theory to have a framework in which a phenomenon can be explained from and make sense out of. I think the feminist theory is going to be a fairly accurate analysis of the current unequal power structure and distribution in our modern society. At least, there is no one else who is seriously analyzing and studying it other than the feminists.
Sociologist Michael Flood has argued that "misandry lacks the systemic, trans-historic, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny"
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
I think the "misandry" and MRAs haven't done their homework, they're just going by their "muh feels and muh personal experiences", which is fine, but they're amateurish and don't have a host of researches and studies that the feminist theory already has. They pretend that it's something new and edgy that the "mainstream doesn't want you to know", but it's old hat.
And when we think "feminist", we automatically think "Oh it's done by women... so automatic bias!". But of course, there are also obviously male sociologists and feminists who are studying the feminist theory:
I graduated in 2006 with a political science degree and spent a couple years doing odd jobs – bartender, tuxedo salesman. Soon I realized I wanted to do academic work, specifically studying men and masculinity, so I re-enrolled in some sociology courses. I was like, I’ll use my academic qualifications to talk about men’s rights issues. I’ll grit my teeth and listen to the feminists and read their stupid books, but then I’ll go my own way. Things didn’t go as planned.
The first semester I took Intro to Gender Theory and the teacher asked, “What does gender mean to you?” Everyone talked about their lived experiences as women or gay men. When it was my turn, I said, “I’m here to offer a man’s point of view on gender.”
My instructor smiled and said, “Well, you must love our textbooks, then.” I looked at the syllabus and saw Masculinities and The Men and the Boys by Raewyn Connell, both about gender from the perspective of men’s lived experiences. I just thought, Well, shit.
I read them and it didn’t take long for my men’s rights beliefs to start falling away. They didn’t stand up to all the empirical evidence I was finally reading – research that was informed by feminist theory and offered actual solutions.
There is a patriarchy comprised mostly of rich old white men. Their victims are almost everyone though, not just women or minorities. Too bad most men are just regular blue or white collar guys trying to make ends meet for their wives and children or harmless men living on their own and they have nothing to do with the so called patriarchy. Yet, they are seen as the enemy, so seeing it as ridiculous is the appropriate response.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
The fourth-wave feminism has been extended lately especially to the LGBT and people of color, due to the focus on intersectionality. It's also spreading to non-Western countries.
OK, I'm not a biblical literalist at all, but if there ever were a sin, it'd be skipping the opportunity to post a good metal song. I don't think the "gender war" started in history so it might as well have started in Eden. At least it isn't some absolute of Nature at all or men wouldn't be able to wear makeup and say things besides ugga ugga and women wouldn't be able to be tough and sing low and we wouldn't have metal, rock, and a lot of other good things, which is exactly why the gender war annoys me.
In many ways I feel like the 'MRA movement' (whatever that's even suppose to mean) was merely an inevitable response to the radicalization of modern feminism, not unlike how many historians argue that the black power movement was merely a response to the radical movements of its time. All the talk about gender politics, patriarchy, 'rape culture', wage-gap myths, privilege -- surely the feigned outrage and petty bickering could only go on for so long before 'privilege contests' started popping up. Like what is it that they say, again? Oh right. Men are more likely to end up homeless, men are more likely to commit suicide, men are more likely to pay alimony and child support (even when they're raped or not even the actual father), men are more likely to receive harsher sentencing for the same crimes (which is ironic because for all the quackery about perceived 'racial injustices' in the judiciary system, the fact remains that in terms of sentencing it's still better to be a black woman than a white male), etc, etc, etc.
Oops and I almost forgot...
Men who complain about not getting sex? It's 100% their own fault for being a socially inept incel.
Women who complain about getting more sex than they want? Not only is it absolutely NEVER their fault, but these women are also super brave for being able to come forward and share their stories.
Thankfully modern feminism isn't taken seriously anymore, and liberalism as a whole is becoming more and more of a dying trend; people of all backgrounds and affiliations are waking up and rejecting these narratives that they should be victims. As a black woman who refuses to identify as a victim despite the constant left-wing fear mongering about rape culture, white supremacy and systemic racism, I actually think that Candace Owens explains it best:
Last edited by perpetuus; 07-29-2019 at 01:48 PM.
Men are the movers of history - women: the puppeteers.
Men are animals, and also women are animals, and they both belong to the species Homo sapiens sapiens. I even heard they reproduce with each other, but then I also heard about some sort of symbiosis with storks creating and delivering babies so I'm not sure.
But most women don't really have this wish to dominate over others or wish to be superior in the same way that men do, and that's why the vast majority of supremacists of any kinds are males. That's why the vast majority of violent crimes and rapes are committed by men. Like I said before, males tend toward more hierarchical relations and females tend toward more horizontal relations.
When males feel threatened, they typically overreact with the wish to dominate the other and thus eliminate the threat. Some males are obviously seeing feminism as a threat, even though they're not meant to be threatening, as they're only arguing against the injustices that women suffer in our society.
So that's why you have these incels that somehow feel so overwhelmingly threatened by women, who are not nearly as big as them, not nearly as physically strong as them, don't nearly have as much social power as them and have the entire social structure stacked against them. They feel so incredibly threatened by this... rather defenseless, vulnerable, harmless women, so much so that they go on these shooting-rampages. And it's like, why?
Well for one, they have an incredibly warped view of women, which have tragically, mostly to do with their own psychological projection of the wish to dominate over them. They think that women are out to get them and dominate over them and enslave them, in the same way that they do. So that's why they have this kind of "do or die" mentality. A woman rejecting a guy does not mean that they're so hostile towards them that it warrants an equal or greater retaliatory force, it merely means that they have no interest at best. People who see feminism as a threat obviously think in the same way.
Objectively speaking, feminism is simply not that harmful, if at all. But the male projections exaggerate the "threat", and start speaking of how harmful feminism is, which is obviously a reaction to the feeling of being threatened. Some males may legitimately feel threatened because it might take away their jobs, they may lose social positions or the rapists may finally get what they deserve.
Honestly, I don't think misandry is as big of a problem as is blatant indifference.
More gender essentialism.When males feel threatened, they typically overreact with the wish to dominate the other and thus eliminate the threat.
Still more gender essentialism. This view is sexist. It may be benevolent sexism, but it's still sexism. Your wokeness card is hereby revoked.rather defenseless, vulnerable, harmless women,
Objectively speaking, feminism is simply not that harmful, if at all. But the male projections exaggerate the "threat", and start speaking of how harmful feminism is, which is obviously a reaction to the feeling of being threatened. Some males may legitimately feel threatened because it might take away their jobs, they may lose social positions or the rapists may finally get what they deserve.A pretty common strawman used to dismiss critics of feminism.
Watch the following from 1:31:15 to about 1:52:15
Also, read up on the Duluth Model.
The fact is that domination and entitlement are more masculine traits. Women simply do not tend to have them. Of course this is not necessarily a "gender" thing, but more of a psychological masculine/feminine thing.
If you start saying that which gender is "superior", then that's more of an attempt at domination of another than anything. You typically don't have any women or feminists actually saying that women are better than men or even which gender is better. So when you start accusing someone of "gender essentialism" or how feminists want to enslave and dominate men or something, that's pure male projection more than anything.
It is quite astonishing that when you give the same amount of guns to roughly the same number of the population, and you have some mass-shooters who are "crazy" and "mentally ill" on one side, and virtually none on the other. 98% of the mass-shooters have been male. Why is this the case?
Why don't women become mass-shooters? Or the better question would be, why would someone become a mass-shooter? And I think what they all have in common is that they have the desire to dominate and have feelings of entitlement.
But of course then don't really want to come up with solutions, because it's all about a subversive way of dominating feminists and reversing the power structure. They view the feminists as being on "top" of them, when they'd like to view themselves as being on "top". This is why they accuse the other of "gender essentialism". But this would not happen if they viewed things on equal grounds, which they are unable to do.
"Gender essentialism is a concept used to examine the attribution of fixed, intrinsic, innate qualities to men and women."
So when you attribute certain traits to either sex, you can call it "gender realism" or whatever term you want to invent, but it still fits the definition of gender essentialism, an actual term used by many feminist scholars.
What's particularly funny is how you're using a tradcon talking point to defend feminism, when most mainstream feminists since the second wave, and a large number of MRAs too, have rejected gender essentialism. A true egalitarian feminist would recognize that the traits you are blithely attributing to one or the other sex can exist in both men and women. That was part of the early feminist movement, a push to make people realize that women were more than the traditional stereotype of frail, fragile victims, and it was a part of Men's rights Activism from the early days to recognize that men could be vulnerable and were more than just domineering, entitled brutes.
Your feminist card is revoked, sir. Either you're trolling or woefully uninformed about the very movements you claim to know so much about.How is accusing one of gender essentialism a projection from men? That very concept was first popularized by feminists, not anti-feminists. Again, you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. Are you actually a right wing troll pretending to be a feminist so you can make them look as pathetic and stupid as possible? This is either ignorance or some 4chan level trolling at work.If you start saying that which gender is "superior", then that's more of an attempt at domination of another than anything. You typically don't have any women or feminists actually saying that women are better than men or even which gender is better. So when you start accusing someone of "gender essentialism" or how feminists want to enslave and dominate men or something, that's pure male projection more than anything.I don't know, why is it the case that most of the teachers who molest underaged students are women, or why most of the infants murdered by their parents are killed by mothers? This argument seems like a red herring. Mass shootings are also quite rare, unless you buy into the media hype. If the media hyped and reported on mentally ill moms who drown their infants in bathtubs as much, we'd probably think that was a widespread problem as well. Quite astonishing indeed.It is quite astonishing that when you give the same amount of guns to roughly the same number of the population, and you have some mass-shooters who are "crazy" and "mentally ill" on one side, and virtually none on the other. 98% of the mass-shooters have been male. Why is this the case?There have been women mass shooters, serial killers, etc. More often than not though, females criminals commit violence by proxy through male accomplices. You need to stop using absolutes because it makes you sound like someone who based their views on some vague, passing notion of gender politicsWhy don't women become mass-shooters? Or the better question would be, why would someone become a mass-shooter? And I think what they all have in common is that they have the desire to dominate and have feelings of entitlement.I can tell you either didn't watch what I posted or glossed over it.It's like sure, there are male victimhood and things like that. But if you're concerned about that, then come up with solutions for them, instead of complaining about feminism. Feminists coming up with solutions don't take away the rights of male victims.
The whole fucking point of that video and the section I asked you to watch is that they are trying to do something about those issues. But almost every time they try to organize or get any meaningful policy achieved or to even discuss those problems, guess who tries to shut them down or stand in their way?
Domestic Violence occurs with nearly as many male victims as male victims. CDC studies show that among half of violent relationships, the violence is largely reciprocal, meaning both partners engage in it. Of the other half of violent relationships, most is shown to actually be perpetrated by women. Here's the article that links to the CDC study. Now you say that feminists don't try to take away the rights of male victims, but that's exactly what they did when they created The Duluth Model, which is now followed by law enforcement and courts in many states--the Duluth Model fails to acknowledge male victims, based upon the feminist presumption that men are entitled and can never truly be victims despite the increasing abundance of evidence suggesting there's far more male victims than previously thought.
Whenever men have tried to get funding to build male shelters (most DV shelters refuse to take males over the age of 12), it's been organizations like NOW and other feminist groups that have fought tooth and nail to try to prevent any funding or building of male shelters (example: Earl Silverman). Then there's the instances caught on video in the video I linked showing feminist groups attempting to shut down MRA conferences trying to address the issues of male victims.
Not to mention feminist groups fought to exclude MRAs from the discussion in the early 2000s when legislators were debating the issue of shared parenting. I mean, can you really blame the anger many of them have towards feminists? They have tried to have a dialogue and work with feminists.
So please, tell me again how feminists don't try to take away rights of male victims or silence any discussion about them?
And maybe use some actual data to back your claims, since so far, you've been unable to back your fridge logic with any real numbers or data, but instead have continued to double down on your strawman argument that MRAs just want to take women's rights and dominate them.
That's a common strawman used against MRAs, that they really just want to dominate feminists (I'm guessing you meant 'women' here, it seems like you keep conflating and using the two words interchangeably). MRAs do in fact try to achieve reforms for boys and men. They criticize feminists because it's usually prominent feminist groups leading charges to to stop their reforms and silence any discussion on male victims. See my comments above.But of course then don't really want to come up with solutions, because it's all about a subversive way of dominating feminists and reversing the power structure. They view the feminists as being on "top" of them, when they'd like to view themselves as being on "top". This is why they accuse the other of "gender essentialism". But this would not happen if they viewed things on equal grounds, which they are unable to do.
And while you're at it, maybe do some real research, maybe visit some actual sites like NCFM before making your false, woefully uninformed assertions about both feminism and MRAs.
Last edited by perpetuus; 08-20-2019 at 06:44 PM.
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/qlwnHTKCPeak0" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/mic-bryan-cranston-qlwnHTKCPeak0">via GIPHY</a></p>
Things like testosterone and estrogen can influence people's thoughts and behaviors, although their effects are still not exactly known. Those kinds of things might be what makes the difference between "masculine" and "feminine".
I can only say that point 2) is only true because children are more likely to be raised by women and single mothers. Which is funny because your complaining point is men don't get as much parental rights as women. Well surprise, if men raised children just as much as women did, then perhaps the statistics would be more equally distributed.
These are completely different from the typical ideologically-based motive of "If you don't agree with my thoughts, then I'll force you using violence" of mass-shootings. Drowning one's own children definitely isn't motivated by the desire to dominate over the other or feeling entitled to something.
Of course, this is currently the best model that that we have right now that can explain the dynamic between male abusers and female victims . If you don't agree with it, then come up with something better.
So far, you have provided none, other than the typical hand-waving that "but there are male victims too!". Come up with a better theory that incorporates both male and female victims, that explains the dynamic of the abuse of power, which the feminist theory has more or less already done.
Btw, I don't actually claim to know that much about feminism, or even that I agree with it 100%. However, it does seem like a lot of things that I've thought about have already been outlined by the feminist theory. And they are converging.
I'm guessing that psychology and some feminist thoughts will have to eventually merge.
Women are Selfish Assholes, Men are Selfish Assholes.
The problem with society and why the elite advocates the pro-female agenda is because male assholeness has more obvious and dangerous consequences than female assholeness, more of a physical, real objective threat. People don't like to have their worlds shaken up, which men can do more directly and easily. Thus men are more villified, because people still like to believe in the fairytales that Good Triumphs Over Evil and objectively Men=Evil and Women=Good enough though subjectively we all know what a load of horseshit that is. Even though females are quite often 'just as evil' they aren't going to care as much or see it that way because men by OBJECTIVE biological nature & design, can and do inflict more damage.
Jew Sages and Elite Hollyweird Scum are hard-wired and socially conditioned to view things in objective terms as opposed to the true heart of the matter, or subjective perceptions. So the fact that their policies often hurt the lives & feelings of men who aren't abusive (and allow Evil Cunts to get away with it more), they don't give a shit or they totally ignore it , because of their focus on objectivity. They always re-write the narrative to portray that men who aren't abusive aren't advocating a pro-male environment, they are upholding the female status quo. Look at all male actors and most democratic male politicians, their entire worth is based upon how heterosexual female soccer moms view them lol. To them, they are being 'the ultimate good guys' - but to many others it is just dumb manipulative PC power playing virtue signaling.
And if you unearth their personal life and see beyond the smarmy Comic Con smiles, you will see just how much of shit a lot of those Hollyweird Guys are - they can easily say all the right things on paper but in private they basically still just view women as their own personal fucktoys and nothing more. Redneck Ronny has such less power than that, but when he is being a creepy perv- at least he's being honest and not two faced about it. Remember Quagmire's speech to Brian in Family Guy? That was pretty brilliant tbh.
I feel who gets hurt the most by this gender war shit, are the str8 men that are actually kind and decent. True 'good/nice guys' not just pretending to be to get sex. All 5 of them! j/k There's at least...75.
Also, there's a great quote that I can't source but I bet someone else here can: "A beautiful woman can open doors armies cannot" Just to spell this one out, beauty takes many forms ladies. She need not be a 12 out of 10 to land that result. Even the legendary Casanova got this. He equivocated speaking to beautiful women with bedding them. A mindset that actually makes sense to me as I think that the less you outwardly display or go for the punanni the more likely you're gonna get it fired at you like grapeshot out of a cannon in an 1800's naval battle .
The importance of minutiae aside, i agree with you. It is foolish to regard the absence as lack, and presence as might. Mostly reveals a lack of nuanced thinking on the part bound to this categoricality.
Lol at Ni lead males talking about the physically more frail gender
ILI's usually come in various meat loads (both females and males). They do seem and some come out quite fragile mentally [like they are about to break inside]. They need that Fi to be gregarious. Depressed ILI is quite impossible to handle for me although they do get kick out of it when I do something that breaks established conventions.
Back to the point : they apparently have strong imaginations. Dunno what sorts of saviors they are in there.
Measuring you right now