Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 155

Thread: Misandry

  1. #41
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    You're talking about the kind of people that literally want to rape and kill them, at least online. And then you go on about "Woah! You should try being nice to them. Have a little empathy". I think that's a tall order to make. They do have the right to be dismissive towards the "incels". It's only legitimate self-defense.
    You're only describing the self-identified ones. "Involuntary celibacy" originally was a kind of unisex safehaven project for loveless individuals started by a bisexual woman, before the label got co-opted by edgelords.


    Here's the thing though. If you make a conscious choice to protect your celibacy, that makes you a voluntary celibate, or volcel. And if you want sex but have never been able to get it practically, that's an incel.

    But what if someone neither actively pursues sex and fails to get it, nor actively avoids it, but just by acting passively, doesn't happen to get it? Technically, his passive state of not having sexual activity is just a default, therefore it's not truly voluntary. Therefore, by the strictest definition, he is an "incel," even if he doesn't particularly mind his not-totally-voluntary state of not engaging in sexual activity.


    And in practice, to the wrong kind of people, it doesn't matter if you're not the type to make those edgy rants about wanting to harm women, they'll still call you "incel" as an invalidator even if you don't self-identify as one. Not only does it not matter to them whether or not you're virgin voluntarily, they don't care if you claim to be a virgin or not at all, if you possess the wrong traits in their eyes. If you don't want vulnerable people to self-identify with a terrible label, you forfeit the right to invalidate them with it, too.

    In practice, the umbrella of people who will be labeled "incel" exceeds the self-identified range that has the truly dangerous traits, and because of the terrorist hype that's been mongered about the label, many women are too terrified or alienated to actually see what's going on and speak out against it.
    It's a reprehensible alliance of male toxicity and female toxicity to cull out and quelch the weakest strata of males. It is punching down in the grossest sense, and yet mainstream media has the gall to defend it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  2. #42
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    This is basically the problem with ambition in the US, not feminist posers specifically but ideological posers in general. People mostly just end up impaling themselves on ideologies they don't believe though it can have negative effects on their environment in the meantime. One of my Russian Facebook friends didn't believe postmodernist posers were a thing but I suspect that's just because she was an actual instance of an ivory-tower academic rather than because that doesn't happen in Russia. Knowing how to turn people against themselves is a pretty good pragmatic use for philosophy in the right environment.
    It's freaky that Russia's overtly decriminalized wifebeating. To the point where cops receiving calls from physically abused wives reply with "We'll come to take care of the body" or similar things.

    It actually scares the crap out of even ME that the vapid "SJW OWNED CRINGE COMPILATION" kiddie fandom actually praises Russian law enforcers for quelching the feminist protestors in their country, when in reality that group of feminists is just fighting for basic rights we take for granted here, not anything we'd consider revolutionary or even novel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  3. #43
    TRVE KVLT Armalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    IEI 451 sp/sx
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Really appreciate the content! This is getting me through a rough patch in my life, as my recent divorce has left me without half of my assets, including my entire home and all three of my children!

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,398
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Endnote: anyone who read Elliot Rodger's edgy book would know that he hated sexuality until his roommates bullied him for being a virgin, then he went hellbent on getting laid to increase his social status.
    ...
    Please don't virgin-shame. And please don't endorse male disposability.
    Your argument is thinly-veiled as "let's not attack the weakest of males" in an appeal to "empathy" and "understanding" (especially that of maternal), but in reality it's "let's placate to the incels, lest they turn violent".

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    It was then that he started killing the women he felt had "denied" him that. If you're a person who wants sex or female company for its own sake, you're a lot less likely to direct your wrath on the object of your desire like he did, as his desires for sex were clearly extrinsic.
    That's a load of crap. Some males will attack and hate women that they claim to be sexually attracted to. That's what misogyny is.

    He didn't attack women just because he was a poor victim of society that virgin-shamed him. He attacked women because he was a narcissist and he felt entitled to having sex with whomever he wanted.

    The question is, why would you feel angry if a woman denies you? It's because you felt entitled.

  5. #45
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Your argument is thinly-veiled as "let's not attack the weakest of males" in an appeal to "empathy" and "understanding" (especially that of maternal), but in reality it's "let's placate to the incels, lest they turn violent".
    If you think toning down the egregious amounts of virgin-shaming society is guilty of is unreasonable, just because it would also serve as placation to a couple violent spergs who were probably insane to begin with, your faculties are too warped for this discussion.


    He didn't attack women just because he was a poor victim of society that virgin-shamed him. He attacked women because he was a narcissist and he felt entitled to having sex with whomever he wanted.
    Did you even read the manifesto he produced, or are you going to claim better knowledge of it than someone who did? I could open up a PDF of it right now and pull out a bunch of quotes that reinforce what I'm saying, but the book is taboo material that may or may not still be feasible to access, I'm on my flimsy phone keypad instead of a computer, and it's 1 AM, so it's not expedient at the moment.

    The question is, why would you feel angry if a woman denies you? It's because you felt entitled.
    No, he felt entitled to social acceptance. Which he was. As everyone is. His family and friends began to lose respect for him because he wasn't active enough in getting laid, and he came to truly believe no one would accept him until he completed that rite of passage. And the fact that something so delicate and chaotic as sexual action is seen as a rite of passage for men in the first place is why these situations are so precarious.
    His fixation wouldn't have been on the women he obviously had no skill in appealing to if not for externally imposed perceptions.

    People like you who treat the symptom of violence but not the cause are the reason there's ongoing strife in the world.
    The social malaise lies in the fact that male sexual aggression is still the script and the expectation, in a time when that behavior's increasingly obsolete. If you don't address the malaise itself, and just start killing or restricting people only when they start damaging your precious systems, the pressure that is still there will burst out at some other point, because you refused to do anything to relieve it.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,398
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    If you think toning down the egregious amounts of virgin-shaming society is guilty of is unreasonable, just because it would also serve as placation to a couple violent spergs who were probably insane to begin with, your faculties are too warped for this discussion.
    Ah ok... so we should tone down the virgin-shaming that is not inherently violent, but we shouldn't bother with toning down misogynistic hate (which culture that Elliot Rodger was part of) that is actually promoting violence against women.

    And "virgin-shaming" is not actually misandry, but rather it's misogyny that treats women as prizes and says that the guy that doesn't get that "prize" is a loser.

    You know it's kinda funny, it's not as if virgin women are not made fun of, but it's not often that they're treated as "losers". What do you "win", if you get laid...?

  7. #47
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah, but it's funny to see how the ones who want respect for the virgin guys are not granting the same basic respect for the girls who are sexually active... if you want double standards, deal with the consequences.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    No, he felt entitled to social acceptance. Which he was. As everyone is. His family and friends began to lose respect for him because he wasn't active enough in getting laid, and he came to truly believe no one would accept him until he completed that rite of passage. And the fact that something so delicate and chaotic as sexual action is seen as a rite of passage for men in the first place is why these situations are so precarious.
    His fixation wouldn't have been on the women he obviously had no skill in appealing to if not for externally imposed perceptions.

    People like you who treat the symptom of violence but not the cause are the reason there's ongoing strife in the world.
    The social malaise lies in the fact that male sexual aggression is still the script and the expectation, in a time when that behavior's increasingly obsolete. If you don't address the malaise itself, and just start killing or restricting people only when they start damaging your precious systems, the pressure that is still there will burst out at some other point, because you refused to do anything to relieve it.
    hell, I remember subtle shaming from my sister and mom when they would wonder aloud at family functions why I didn't have a steady girlfriend at one period in my life. It wasn't something I was particularly focused on attaining at the time, but suddenly I was wondering if something was wrong with me and I started to obsess over my lack of an SO. I remember another instance when a female friend of mine had called my house in tears when I wasn't home to answer the call, and she proceeded to cry to my sister because I simply didn't share her feelings (women get friendzoned too). I actually remember my sister scolding me and asking if I was gay due to my refusal to date someone I had no romantic interest in, and frankly just didn't find attractive to me in any sense that would warrant pursuing a relationship.

    I don't compare this in equivalence to what women have to go through in being shamed for failing to "find a man" or "settle down" before a certain age, but I do think our society shames males to some extent when they either refuse to seek monogamy or cannot get a date.

    Or, when we are dating but want to take our time or simply don't want to take it to the next level (i.e. engagement), males tend to be shamed as being "afraid of commitment." It's not the same as what women go through, just to clarify before @Singu or someone accuses me again of saying men have it worse (which I never once said in this thread, to be clear). This is one area where there's still a big double standard. We tend to encourage and applaud women for keeping their options open or taking it slowly, but scold men for doing the same. I'm not saying women shouldn't have the choices and understanding, just pointing out an obvious double standard.

    I get it, it's kind of trivial shit, and again, not saying ladies don't overall have it worse in the expectations placed upon them.

    An aside, it really sucks when you have to make that disclaimer in every goddamn post mentioning anything dudes experience, but it's always the case in these sort of discussions that even mentioning something males experience always seems to result in "but de wammens have it worse so shut up". Yeah no shit. Empathy doesn't need to be a zero-sum game, there's plenty to go around. Those "yeah, but.." responses get pretty old and generally derail these discussions and divert the focus.

    Divert to my nutsack.
    Last edited by soulless ginger mutant; 07-24-2019 at 05:07 PM.

  9. #49
    TRVE KVLT Armalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    IEI 451 sp/sx
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When discussing these sorts of things it's so childish when people go "oh but women have it so much worse!!!!111". Completely missing the point. Yeah, and there are people who have it so much worse than women in the West, but that's not what we're fuckin talking about is it. It's not a competition in who's the biggest victim, acknowleding unique injustices towards one gender doesn't mean that you somehow relativise the unique injustices towards the other.

  10. #50
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Ah ok... so we should tone down the virgin-shaming that is not inherently violent, but we shouldn't bother with toning down misogynistic hate (which culture that Elliot Rodger was part of) that is actually promoting violence against women.
    If your tactic to curb the dangerous spergs is to amp up the blanket incel-shaming so that everyone who is able avoids anything encircling that label, people who don't think the same way but still show traits that make them a target for virgin-shaming will get caught in the crossfire. This group may become further radicalized this way than had the "incel" meme never caught on.

    I'm not arguing that violence is good. I'm arguing that shaming is always a bad tactic for curtailing it, because this tactic always tends towards strengthening the preexisting social norms, and the ones that exist on this issue are what caused the problem in the first place.


    And no, there will never be a wave of domestic terrorism great enough that it's worth starting another Red Scare over. The number of lives lost to nutters that fly off the handle is tiny compared to the number lost to mundane crap like heart disease and suicide. If it were someone close to me that were taken in one of these killings, I'd be dismayed, but I'd also be sad if they died in a car crash.
    The social damage and consequences to people's livelihood because of this hype is widespread. We may have had three or four big killings related to >tfwnogf men, but we've also had a killing by a mentally stunted schizo who wanted to die and become a ghost girl. Hell, so great is the paranoia that we've had an incident of an innocent man being framed for a shooting because he uploaded some quasi-incel content online.





    And "virgin-shaming" is not actually misandry, but rather it's misogyny that treats women as prizes and says that the guy that doesn't get that "prize" is a loser.
    Oooh wow, a nominal distinction. I guess I'm btfo now. Can't complain about something that might affect me because another group owns it!

    Is this how all you keyboard-enabled trilobites really think about social issues? As if social groups are always at such odds that their interests can absolutely never overlap, and they can never wish to solve the same problems?


    What do you "win", if you get laid...?
    Is strawmanning a reflex for you, or do you think you'll "win" something by making the right accusation? If you still think my answer to this retarded question isn't "nothing," you lack the reading comprehension for this conversation.



    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    yeah, but it's funny to see how the ones who want respect for the virgin guys are not granting the same basic respect for the girls who are sexually active.
    I don't have a great enough sample size of opinions to comment one way or another, but suffice to say, the ones who hold this double standard just aren't thinking about the issue critically enough. Usually the people who put the most pressure on males to be disposable soldiers and cumpumps are the same ones who pressure the females to be chaste and repressed.
    Last edited by Grendel; 07-24-2019 at 10:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  11. #51
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atlascog View Post
    When discussing these sorts of things it's so childish when people go "oh but women have it so much worse!!!!111". Completely missing the point. Yeah, and there are people who have it so much worse than women in the West, but that's not what we're fuckin talking about is it. It's not a competition in who's the biggest victim, acknowleding unique injustices towards one gender doesn't mean that you somehow relativise the unique injustices towards the other.
    well can you describe some examples of actually occurring misandy-hate for men in virtue of their gender-?

    chances are that you'll find the most hate for men belongs to the feminist extremists (and I think, rightly so, since they target their oppressors). so you see how the 2 things go hand in hand. yes, misandry is the other side of misoginy.

    the point is... is it really the case misandry is a thing outside of some "SJW" movement? I really doubt it... it looks more like a charged answer to the women's sentiment of oppression and injustice, that drew light on to them/their conditions... and some men just wanted to have that light for themselves.

  12. #52
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I don't have a great enough sample size of opinions to comment one way or another, but suffice to say, the ones who hold this double standard just aren't thinking about the issue critically enough. Usually the people who put the most pressure on males to be disposable soldiers and cumpumps are the same ones who pressure the females to be chaste and repressed.
    basically rational extroverts, they conform to society and its rules... but who doesn't at some extent? I've been accused for all sort of things lately, from you too (your approval of hate supports the violent perpretators), and here you come talking about how some people shame genders for their out of the box behaviors, not nice, nor honest. but you're not the only one.

  13. #53
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    basically rational extroverts, they conform to society and its rules... but who doesn't at some extent? I've been accused for all sort of things lately, from you too (your approval of hate supports the violent perpretators), and here you come talking about how some people shame genders for their out of the box behaviors, not nice, nor honest. but you're not the only one.
    Is anything short of mass-SWATting the homes of posters on incel sites "approval" then? What's your solution? Kill a thousand people pre-emptively because they match the behavior patterns of three people who actually acted on these thoughts in the past?

    I complain about this because you just know people are gonna stretch what qualifies a person as an incel far beyond the population that poses a real threat, not because I have some love for the people who really are scary.

    I don't know how many times I need to say this, but by and large it's the pervasive notion that males need to be sexually active in order to be a "real man" that leads them to think they're hopeless losers because they're unattractive to the opposite sex, and so instead of letting go of a desire they can't fulfill, they go off the deep end and go violent. Wouldn't counteracting that notion be the best solution? Or is the fact that enough of them have become directly violent so suddenly justification for more urgent measures like increased police action? I don't know what you think is going to stop this short of that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  14. #54
    TRVE KVLT Armalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    IEI 451 sp/sx
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    well can you describe some examples of actually occurring misandy-hate for men in virtue of their gender-?
    Whether it's actual misandry or not is another question, and I don't want to get mixed up in semantics - let's just say that there are cases in society in which men are treated differently/have different things happen to them (for the negative) by virtue of their own gender. @soulless ginger mutant listed a good amount of examples in this post: https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/58835-Misandry?p=1346653&viewfull=1#post1346653

    Again, I'm NOT trying to reduce the fact that women face injustices that should be worked against.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    chances are that you'll find the most hate for men belongs to the feminist extremists (and I think, rightly so, since they target their oppressors). so you see how the 2 things go hand in hand. yes, misandry is the other side of misoginy.
    Well, if you think hatred is a good method then maybe we should just end the conversation here. No matter, this hypothesis of yours that misandry is the other side of misogyny is definitely interesting, although I'd also say that it's potentially a bit simple. Do you really mean to say that literally all hate/injustice towards men in particular - throughout history as well as now - exists because of men's hate/injustice towards women? Like some sort of original sin? Because ultimately, that sounds to me like what you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    the point is... is it really the case misandry is a thing outside of some "SJW" movement? I really doubt it... it looks more like a charged answer to the women's sentiment of oppression and injustice, that drew light on to them/their conditions... and some men just wanted to have that light for themselves.
    What other people do has nothing to do with me or the views I'm expressing here.

  15. #55
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Is anything short of mass-SWATting the homes of posters on incel sites "approval" then? What's your solution? Kill a thousand people pre-emptively because they match the behavior patterns of three people who actually acted on these thoughts in the past?

    I complain about this because you just know people are gonna stretch what qualifies a person as an incel far beyond the population that poses a real threat, not because I have some love for the people who really are scary.

    I don't know how many times I need to say this, but by and large it's the pervasive notion that males need to be sexually active in order to be a "real man" that leads them to think they're hopeless losers because they're unattractive to the opposite sex, and so instead of letting go of a desire they can't fulfill, they go off the deep end and go violent. Wouldn't counteracting that notion be the best solution? Or is the fact that enough of them have become directly violent so suddenly justification for more urgent measures like increased police action? I don't know what you think is going to stop this short of that.
    I wasn't talking about the incel situation, of which I honestly don't care until they decide to behave like proper people. sure, society imposes things to which we have to conform, and if we don't we can be shamed/excluded/etc; and I think this is bs, that's what I'm talking about. but if you stick to defend the incels wtv shit they commit, I just see it as hypocrite when you condemn girls for the reversed yet same thing. that's what I'm talking about.

    I know of no feminists who've attempted to kill boys or publicly shame/attack them in virtue of being men, but I read this is what happened with some incels. no excuses for this, and just more points to the misogynist cause.

  16. #56
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @atlascog

    I've read ginger's list, I don't think it had any particular case of misandry= hate for men in virtue of being men. some points looked exaggerated, as the loans mostly for women (personal case, it didn't happen to me, because I'm a woman and the man I consulted to receive a loan didn't see me fit to run a particular activity), or receiving longer sentences for the same crimes (law is a complex system, and much goes to the attitude you display in the phase of judgement, so yeah, men are disadvantaged in this, as they can show less guilt and more pride, which doesn't help... but hate?)

    the point about misoginy--> misandry is that you can't get men to hate other men, or it would be self hate. who hates women? the men who think women are their personal property and can use them as they wish. who hates men? only women can...

    but women's nature is not as aggressive as men's one, in general. if an act of hate happens to a man, it's more probably the result of an individual trigger, rather than a battle against men-kind altogether.

  17. #57
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    I wasn't talking about the incel situation, of which I honestly don't care until they decide to behave like proper people. sure, society imposes things to which we have to conform, and if we don't we can be shamed/excluded/etc; and I think this is bs, that's what I'm talking about. but if you stick to defend the incels wtv shit they commit, I just see it as hypocrite when you condemn girls for the reversed yet same thing. that's what I'm talking about.
    Depends; did I "Like" a "burn" post some guy made to you while you were being mobbed for something? Unless you mean that, I don't even know what you could be referring to you by "the girl equivalent," we haven't interacted at all, and I'm trying to remember anything at all I might've said that matches that description but can't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  18. #58
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yup, you liked several posts directed at shaming my sexual conduct.

  19. #59
    TRVE KVLT Armalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    IEI 451 sp/sx
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    I've read ginger's list, I don't think it had any particular case of misandry= hate for men in virtue of being men. some points looked exaggerated, as the loans mostly for women (personal case, it didn't happen to me, because I'm a woman and the man I consulted to receive a loan didn't see me fit to run a particular activity), or receiving longer sentences for the same crimes (law is a complex system, and much goes to the attitude you display in the phase of judgement, so yeah, men are disadvantaged in this, as they can show less guilt and more pride, which doesn't help... but hate?)
    They are negative differences based on the virtue of gender though, just like I said. I told you I didn't want to get involved in semantics, as it's another discussion whether actual misandry/misogyny is the root cause of gender inequality. My main point is this: it's flat-out wrong to say that there aren't gender differences that negatively affect men in particular. But you can continue relativising those differences how much you want, it doesn't really change my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    the point about misoginy--> misandry is that you can't get men to hate other men, or it would be self hate. who hates women? the men who think women are their personal property and can use them as they wish. who hates men? only women can...
    Sorry, but I don't really get what you're trying to say. Men can't hate other men... what?

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    but women's nature is not as aggressive as men's one, in general. if an act of hate happens to a man, it's more probably the result of an individual trigger, rather than a battle against men-kind altogether.
    Interesting, it looks like you have an essentialist view on gender. Are you a 'difference feminist' by any chance? And what are you basing all this on by the way?

  20. #60
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atlascog View Post
    They are negative differences based on the virtue of gender though, just like I said. I told you I didn't want to get involved in semantics, as it's another discussion whether actual misandry/misogyny is the root cause of gender inequality. My main point is this: it's flat-out wrong to say that there aren't gender differences that negatively affect men in particular. But you can continue relativising those differences how much you want, it doesn't really change my point.
    fine, but all these negative differences don't account for "men hate". the keyword here is hate.

    Sorry, but I don't really get what you're trying to say. Men can't hate other men... what?
    yep, if a man hates the male-species, his hate is directed at himself too. self hate. if you get assaulted at night (which happens to more women than men, and sure, all scenarios are inadmissible, but this speaks in terms of the motivations behind it), it's probably not a case of misandry, but just violence pure and simple.

    Interesting, it looks like you have an essentialist view on gender. Are you a 'difference feminist' by any chance? And what are you basing all this on by the way?
    women and men are wired differently, yet what we make out of these differences is highly due to society's impositions. testosterone and estrogen.

  21. #61
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    yup, you liked several posts directed at shaming my sexual conduct.
    Ahhhh, alright. I didn't have much of a comment on that matter but saw a lot of burns there I thought sounded too savage to pass up. But I guess that counts as "having" an opinion if that's the end effect.

    I guess a conduit like that demands one be more discerning because there's a lot less information going across. Sorry about that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  22. #62
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thank you : )

  23. #63
    TRVE KVLT Armalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    IEI 451 sp/sx
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    fine, but all these negative differences don't account for "men hate". the keyword here is hate.
    I have not used the word 'hate' at all. So no, it's not a keyword in my argument actually. Although I understand the confusion, due to the thread's title.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    yep, if a man hates the male-species, his hate is directed at himself too. self hate.
    Yes, unless the hate is towards everyone in the male species but himself. Though I don't see what that has to do with anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    if you get assaulted at night it's probably not a case of misandry ([...]), but just violence pure and simple.
    Yes, I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    women and men are wired differently, yet what we make out of these differences is highly due to society's impositions.
    Dito.

  24. #64
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atlascog View Post

    Yes, unless the hate is towards everyone in the male species but himself. Though I don't see what that has to do with anything.
    for example, you don't really have misogynist women, but you can have bigot women who impose the mainstream values onto everyone, and on themselves too. same for men, you can have men who support the super macho cause and shame everyone else, same bigots as before.

    I guess you're right that we can hate our own gender and consider ourselves better than most males or females... but I'm not sure this really becomes the sort of "hate", or negative behaviors directed at specific genders that we're talking about. probably these people are more misanthropes altogether, or decide to switch gender, or most likely keep this sense of superiority to themselves... I mean, I know some people who consider themselves better than most people of their gender, but they don't mistreat their group for that.

  25. #65
    TRVE KVLT Armalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sweden
    TIM
    IEI 451 sp/sx
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    for example, you don't really have misogynist women, but you can have bigot women who impose the mainstream values onto everyone, and on themselves too. same for men, you can have men who support the super macho cause and shame everyone else, same bigots as before.
    I believe that's what's commonly referred to as 'internalised sexism'. Simone de Beauvoir - a philosopher I appreciate - spoke about how female oppression is now partly their own making, as in the lapse of history women became accustomed to a certain (oppressed) role. But this role also brought women a sense of safety, or clarity as to what's expected of them, which is why you'll find women who are unwilling to break free from the roles they've been assigned, presumably by the 'patriarchy'. To reach freedom and fulfillment, from her immanent, oppressed state she must go to her self-realised, transcendental state. But this takes a lot of courage. Of course these days feminism ideally doesn't judge women either way, no matter if they choose to live more traditional lifestyles or not. I think 'free choice' are key words. Female liberation was the original goal after all, which in my mind isn't something that can always be said for the feminism of today.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    I guess you're right that we can hate our own gender and consider ourselves better than most males or females... but I'm not sure this really becomes the sort of "hate", or negative behaviors directed at specific genders that we're talking about. probably these people are more misanthropes altogether, or decide to switch gender, or most likely keep this sense of superiority to themselves... I mean, I know some people who consider themselves better than most people of their gender, but they don't mistreat their group for that.
    Yes.

  26. #66
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,777
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Someone who passes along literal physical violence and misogyny from cracking after a bit of bullying is just a shit human who deserves the negative stuff that happened to him. I like the idea of not virgin-shaming, but I think a different poster child needs to be used. @Grendel

    It’s hypocritical otherwise, as @ooo outlined.
    Last edited by sbbds; 07-25-2019 at 01:42 AM.

  27. #67
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atlascog View Post
    I believe that's what's commonly referred to as 'internalised sexism'. Simone de Beauvoir - a philosopher I appreciate - spoke about how female oppression is now partly their own making, as in the lapse of history women became accustomed to a certain (oppressed) role. But this role also brought women a sense of safety, or clarity as to what's expected of them, which is why you'll find women who are unwilling to break free from the roles they've been assigned, presumably by the 'patriarchy'. To reach freedom and fulfillment, from her immanent, oppressed state she must go to her self-realised, transcendental state. But this takes a lot of courage. Of course these days feminism ideally doesn't judge women either way, no matter if they choose to live more traditional lifestyles or not. I think 'free choice' are key words. Female liberation was the original goal after all, which in my mind isn't something that can always be said for the feminism of today.
    yeah I was thinking of the same thing. internalised sexism is a real thing and we're wired to adapt to the environment we live in, so to our "self" imposed sexual prejudices too. yet if you seek some kind of independence and get mistreated in virtue of your gender then you realize how tight and limiting those prejudices can be...

    men don't to cry, show affection, be cute.. women don't get dirty fixing refrigerators, run businesses, fight back... prejudices are on both sides. men are stronger, women are weaker. the consequences of such ideas are inevitably damaging both sides...

    (I don't want to start a feminist discussion, I'm obviously a fem, and I think everyone should be, in profit of all -because of the aforementioned discrepancies-. I'm not much aware of the many waves of feminism out there, and I'm not interested in supporting them, but the cases of unfair wages, work discrimination, sexual assaults, legit mistreatment (worldwide) that women face are instances that concern me -as a woman and human being-, and until we don't change attitude, men too will suffer the consequences of these discrepancies.

  28. #68
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,777
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it would be helpful if more people realized that while there may be some idea of what is traditionally considered positive or attractive for each gender, going against that can also be equally or more attractive. There will always be outliers who have niche preferences, as well as the fact that people can often find that they like things they didn’t expect to like. On top of that, standing out can get you more attention, which is usually a net plus if you aren’t completely repulsive and have some basic attractiveness in a general sense.

  29. #69

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,398
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atlascog View Post
    When discussing these sorts of things it's so childish when people go "oh but women have it so much worse!!!!111". Completely missing the point. Yeah, and there are people who have it so much worse than women in the West, but that's not what we're fuckin talking about is it. It's not a competition in who's the biggest victim, acknowleding unique injustices towards one gender doesn't mean that you somehow relativise the unique injustices towards the other.
    It's this kind of Orwellian rewriting of history. "Misandry" was initially mostly a reaction against feminism, that said "But what about men?!?!? Men have it bad too!!!11".

    It's like saying "Women are so revered that they're always portrayed as being right. This isn't patriarchy, it's matriarchy!!111". But then nobody believes them when they complain of being raped or sexually harassed and calls them undependable liars.

    Yes sure, that's not what it has to be about, be it tend to be that way. The fact is that people rarely complained about misandry before because well... probably it never really existed or the points were too minuscule to be mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    If your tactic to curb the dangerous spergs is to amp up the blanket incel-shaming so that everyone who is able avoids anything encircling that label, people who don't think the same way but still show traits that make them a target for virgin-shaming will get caught in the crossfire. This group may become further radicalized this way than had the "incel" meme never caught on.
    Well fine, stop virgin-shaming for all I care, but what caused Elliot Rodger to an act of violence isn't likely because he was virgin-shamed.

    There are a lot of possible factors, but I would suspect it has more to do with his narcissistic rage, his feeling of entitlement and his chronic envy of others. And the fact that he was a part of a hateful culture that promoted violence against women and the society in general that do not share their views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Oooh wow, a nominal distinction. I guess I'm btfo now. Can't complain about something that might affect me because another group owns it!
    It's somewhat relevant, because we're essentially talking about the why of virgin-shaming. If a man gets shamed for being a virgin, then why?

    Typically, getting laid is an endgoal for men. That is the "prize". This will eventually mean objectification and de-humanization of women.

    If sex was about say, love, then why would Elliot Rodger kill them for being unable to attain his "prize"? So even if he were affected by virgin-shaming, the entire culture of male virgin-shaming that is misogynistic in nature is what drove him to violence.

    What if virgin-shaming was misandric? Well then we would dehumanize men, and maybe say that men should only be used as a tool to give pleasure to women or give them money or something. But this would be less likely to end up being violent.

    So the fact is that women rarely "use" men in that way, as a tool in the same way that men do. This is why misandry occurs less often, because it seems as if men's hatred and women's hatred show up in completely different ways. "Misandry" exist in women very rarely to almost non-existent, while the potentiality for misogyny in men is huge. I think it's because men and women are different, and it's more likely for men to objectify others.

  30. #70

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    else
    Posts
    222
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I saw a movie about three black women who worked at NASA as mathematicians in the sixties, and, even if I knew of the seperation of people based on skin color, it was still strange to see "colored fountains", "colored bathrooms", even a "colored coffee maker" and the sole black person in a group using a brown mug, while the others had white ones. It all seemed like a bad joke, and I know someday, what bothers us now will seem like a bad jokes to randos watching movies based on real stories of our time.
    I don't want to fight, I think just existing as I am is enough, hell, I'm only learning to be selfish enough to care for myself. I can't fight for every causes, I can't hear every story, I'm not even sure I'd fight for my own rights... nvm, I never fought for those, so others'? When I see so many people hurting around me, I just feel guilty, but I can't do much and I have to shut all that pain around from my mind just in order to survive. I refuse to shoulder a cause or be an ally, it's too much risk on my health. I know from past experiences, so glad I don't faint anymore.
    Still feel the need to justify though, because you simply cannot not shoulder a certain cause if you're X or Y.
    There was a time anyone could have used me to pass any message they wanted, and that's still a struggle, but now, I want to stand on my own, use my own words and vision, not some group's. It doesn't matter if my values align with a group, I refuse to call myself a part of any group.
    I trust in time and that being as I am is enough.

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,096
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    you can't get men to hate other men, or it would be self hate. who hates women? the men who think women are their personal property and can use them as they wish. who hates men? only women can...
    Sometimes it seems like most men hate other men depending on where you are and just want women as an escape from themselves.

  32. #72

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,096
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    (I don't want to start a feminist discussion, I'm obviously a fem, and I think everyone should be, in profit of all -because of the aforementioned discrepancies-. I'm not much aware of the many waves of feminism out there, and I'm not interested in supporting them, but the cases of unfair wages, work discrimination, sexual assaults, legit mistreatment (worldwide) that women face are instances that concern me -as a woman and human being-, and until we don't change attitude, men too will suffer the consequences of these discrepancies.
    Saying that issues affect both genders and then saying both genders should resolve their problems under a movement called feminism and crochet misandry hats and make fun of "male tears" much like mainstream sexism shames men for crying is just trying to have your cake and eat it too. To make necessary wordplay, I'm not a fem(me) and don't think everyone should be. Making a religion out of women's problems is ridiculous no matter how awful the problems are, especially if we're all mandated to wear "feminist" and "misandry" t-shirts and offend against every possible taste besides the ideological while we do it. A finite problem does not demand an infinite solution.

  33. #73
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    Saying that issues affect both genders and then saying both genders should resolve their problems under a movement called feminism and crochet misandry hats and make fun of "male tears" much like mainstream sexism shames men for crying is just trying to have your cake and eat it too. To make necessary wordplay, I'm not a fem(me) and don't think everyone should be. Making a religion out of women's problems is ridiculous no matter how awful the problems are, especially if we're all mandated to wear "feminist" and "misandry" t-shirts and offend against every possible taste besides the ideological while we do it. A finite problem does not demand an infinite solution.
    who's making fun of men's tears? and what's wrong in having a cake and eat it (why should you not eat your cake even?)? feminism is not a religion, nor it implies wearing ugly tshirts... lol

    the point is that while we reinforce misogyny, we're reinforcing the divides between men and women's "proper behavior"; but while for women the consequences of these can be really brutal, for men they sum up to virgin shaming and a forbidden display of emotions (=girly stuff).

    it's really not ridiculous to stop seeing the feminine as something weaker, and if it's ridiculous to fight for women's right to be treated fairly, then you're basically supporting the whole male tears male emotion are bs, "misandrist" nonsense.

  34. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    I know of no feminists who've attempted to kill boys or publicly shame/attack them in virtue of being men, but I read this is what happened with some incels. no excuses for this, and just more points to the misogynist cause.
    British suffragettes (Proto-feminists) during WWI encouraged women to shame men into enlisting by publicly pinning white feathers on them. More recently, you can read the writings of feminists like Dworkin and Bindel and find plenty of misandrist, shaming statements toward men.

  35. #75
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soulless ginger mutant View Post
    British suffragettes (Proto-feminists) during WWI encouraged women to shame men into enlisting by publicly pinning white feathers on them.
    pacific, funny protest not motivated by an hatred for men but by a pacifist stance...

  36. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    pacific, funny protest not motivated by an hatred for men but by a pacifist stance...

    they weren't pacifist, they were shaming men into enlisting in the army. Feminism and chivalry have always had a weird relationship. You might dismiss it as "funny" or satire but the end result is shaming men into enlisting to go put themselves in the very likely scenario of dying or coming home maimed and likely suffering PTSD.

    There's actually quite a many examples of feminists publicly shaming men, and plenty more recent examples abound on youtube. Here's a video from circa 2014 of feminist protesters shaming men and attempting to block entry at a Warren Farrell public event. I love the part when one gets in a dude's face and keeps repeating "you're scum" with such rancor.



    There was a similar video of feminist protesters shutting down a Janice Fiamengo lecture by pulling fire alarms. Unfortunately it appears to no longer exist on youtube.

    Pretty much any MRA group that assembles to discuss boys' and mens' issues can expect to face a crowd of feminist protesters shouting the typical strawman chants that they are "anti gay, anti black, etc", despite the MRA movement generally being a non-racially motivated group and including gay men in its ranks. It's not really a shock MRAs are highly distrustful of feminists and are cautious of working or interacting with them.


    keep in mind I'm in no way justifying any shaming tactics used by incels and similar groups, just setting the record straight, as I've seen the argument a lot that feminists never engage in similar tactics. It happens, it just tends not to get picked up and reported on too much.

    You might dismiss this post or beg for more citations, but the point is it happens and you can't really deny it unless you willfully choose to turn a blind eye.

    EDIT: found it:

    Last edited by soulless ginger mutant; 07-25-2019 at 12:52 PM.

  37. #77
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soulless ginger mutant View Post
    More recently, you can read the writings of feminists like Dworkin and Bindel and find plenty of misandrist, shaming statements toward men.
    yeah, that's the kind of misandry men can face, I guess that's the only instance you can use that term (note though that those ideas don't bring to acted violence towards men). extremist feminists are hateful towards women and other groups too -as you say-. I'm going through the quotes of Dworkin and women are accused for the "internalized sexism" we were talking about before (she says women who submit to men are trash). I don't wanna talk about the roundabouts of feminism, and yes, it's been extreme in some occasions and promoted bad behaviors too.. yet I understand the sentiment of oppression that is behind those gestures, and I think it was somewhat inevitable. yet I don't justify any of these aggressive behaviors.

    they weren't pacifist, they were shaming men into enlisting in the army. Feminism and chivalry have always had a weird relationship. You might dismiss it as "funny" or satire but the end result is shaming men into enlisting to go put themselves in the very likely scenario of dying or coming home maimed and likely suffering PTSD.
    yes they were pacifist, used pacific methods (if they really did only put a white feather on future soldiers' jackets), and their hate was directed not at men as a species, but at the people (in this case only men) who supported the war.

    You might dismiss this post or beg for more citations, but the point is it happens and you can't really deny it unless you willfully choose to turn a blind eye.
    I'm not dismissing these posts, I even asked for them before. from the scratch I've been of the idea that the only instances of misandry occur when women act disrespectfully towards man... your examples prove my point. yet, shit and insults apart, these cases are still not as violently damaging as thinking for millennia that women are inferior and must be treated consequentially. it's boring to always make a comparison, yes, but if you get what women feel and have experienced, then you can understand why they want to fight back.

  38. #78

    Default




    yes they were pacifist, used pacific methods (if they really did only put a white feather on future soldiers' jackets), and their hate was directed not at men as a species, but at the people (in this case only men) who supported the war.


    I think you're misunderstanding what the White Feather Brigade stood for. They were supporters of the war, and white feathers were supposed to be a sign of cowardice. Hence pinning them on unenlisted men in an effort to shame them into joining the army and becoming human meat shields.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/11/first-world-war-white-feather-cowardice
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
    http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i


    One who supports a war effort, even indirectly, is hardly a pacifist. They wanted men to enlist to fight. They were not pacifists. If they'd been pacifists they'd probably have been shaming men they saw in uniform.


    It never ceases to amaze me how little of feminist history many defenders of feminism are really aware of.




    I'd include language such as "mansplain" and "manspread" as designed to shame. Note that they take non-gender specific behavior and focus on them as though they were only committed en masse by men. However, anyone who's ridden enough public transportation has likely also seen many instances of "pursespreading". Also, imagine how people would react if we started using the word "femsplaining" widely. Imagine people's reaction if "momsplaining" became a commonly used word. I imagine people would lose their shit and rightfully label these terms as sexist.

    Last edited by soulless ginger mutant; 07-25-2019 at 12:21 PM.

  39. #79

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,398
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soulless ginger mutant View Post
    I think you're misunderstanding what the White Feather Brigade stood for. They were supporters of the war, and white feathers were supposed to be a sign of cowardice. Hence pinning them on unenlisted men in an effort to shame them into joining the army and becoming human meat shields.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/11/first-world-war-white-feather-cowardice
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather
    http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/151/the-white-feather-campaign-a-struggle-with-masculinity-during-world-war-i

    One who supports a war effort, even indirectly, is hardly a pacifist. They wanted men to enlist to fight. They were not pacifists. If they'd been pacifists they'd probably have been shaming men they saw in uniform.

    It never ceases to amaze me how little of feminist history many defenders of feminism are really aware of.

    I'd include language such as "mansplain" and "manspread" as designed to shame. Note that they take non-gender specific behavior and focus on them as though they were only committed en masse by men. However, anyone who's ridden enough public transportation has likely also seen many instances of "pursespreading". Also, imagine how people would react if we started using the word "femsplaining" widely. Imagine people's reaction if "momsplaining" became a commonly used word. I imagine people would lose their shit and rightfully label these terms as sexist.
    There's a historical context. During 1914, women didn't even have the right to vote, they weren't considered to be first-class citizens. Most feminists back then were against war, but some became militarized and supportive of war in order to gain suffrage. After all, the argument back then could be easily imagined as, if you don't go to war or support it, then should you even have the right to vote?

    As time went on, women increasingly became supportive of war and they were "making munitions, and doing jobs formerly done by enfranchised men, but many were risking their lives as doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers at the front. As press campaigns pilloried un-enlisted 'shirkers', they simultaneously praised women for their valiant contributions. "

    Also the propaganda was that the first victims of wars would be women and children, that the enemies were barbaric, and that they would be raped, plundered, or otherwise starve to death. And who would not oppose things like being raped? The enemy wasn't their own British army, but the barbaric Germans. So it is understandable that there were women that would want to support war and send men to fight their "enemies".

    Of course people back then wanted women to support the war, so they appealed to women's causes.



    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/505...itarism-in-uk/

  40. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    There's a historical context. During 1914, women didn't even have the right to vote, they weren't considered to be first-class citizens. Most feminists back then were against war, but some became militarized and supportive of war in order to gain suffrage. After all, the argument back then could be easily imagined as, if you don't go to war or support it, then should you even have the right to vote?

    As time went on, women increasingly became supportive of war and they were "making munitions, and doing jobs formerly done by enfranchised men, but many were risking their lives as doctors, nurses, and ambulance drivers at the front. As press campaigns pilloried un-enlisted 'shirkers', they simultaneously praised women for their valiant contributions. "

    Also the propaganda was that the first victims of wars would be women and children, that the enemies were barbaric, and that they would be raped, plundered, or otherwise starve to death. And who would not oppose things like being raped? The enemy wasn't their own British army, but the barbaric Germans. So it is understandable that there were women that would want to support war and send men to fight their "enemies".

    Of course people back then wanted women to support the war, so they appealed to women's causes.



    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/505...itarism-in-uk/

    I'm aware of the historical context. This doesn't contradict my claim

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •