FDR Liberated Forum

General Category => Run wild => Topic started by: ZetaMan on March 22, 2014, 10:49:36 PM

Title: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on March 22, 2014, 10:49:36 PM
Every group of maniacs have a few channels to reality left open, and some have very profound ones. Thus the great ease they rope people in with. For without any channel to reality at all, no value is seen in it by the prospective recruit. (I cite my personal and professional experiences as well as hobbyist intrigue into cult psychology)
So, instead of relinquishing all the power to those channels to reality, let's actually examine them with facts and reality tests so we can recapture these truths and use them to the favour of mankind in general and not some cybercult.

Examples of Healthy Objections to Feminism

The Men's Rights Movements - Spearheaded by "A Voice For Men". Not a cult. Marginal collectivity, but as far as social movements go, pretty damn diversified in opinion. I myself am a Men's Rights Activist, and I am accepted by my peers insofar as I am a Men's Rights Activist. The rest of my internal and daily lives are uninhibited, however if I expressed Fascistic tendencies coupled with MRA ideations I would be almost universally rejected. (Example of a man rejected by the MRA: Peter Nolan AKA GlobalMan)

The MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) Movement - Unorganized. Not collective at all. These individuals hold ranging expectations and criticisms of women. The most extreme cases are not Anti-Woman, but simply harbour bitterness towards women and do not trust them enough to take them seriously as people. Objectionably - probably so - but justifiable.

Karen Straughan AKA GirlWritesWhat - Youtube personality. Speaks from a sociological and evolutionary psychology standpoint. Is not a self-hating woman. Does not encourage ANYTHING in her viewers and merely relays facts and her perspective as a woman.

Everyone Else - I read an article here that pissed me off. The title of which was inspired by "Moly" (as I see some refer to him as, and I will from now on for short-hand), and this thread is named after that article. It displayed very bitter sentiments from men. No questions are ever asked why a man might feel the need to say such things, yet when a Feminazi expresses her desire to rid the world of men via eugenics the excuse is that she was abused and is now bitter. To disregard the grievances (no matter how they're expressed) on the basis of ideology is a sin and nothing short of cruelty. I now offer my fellow men, and women with eyes with which to read, to redeem themselves from this offense towards Humanity.

If at all I still have your attention I would strongly recommend you set aside an hour a day to digest samples of the following Youtube channels in this order: ManWomanMyth, Paul Elam, Karen Straughan, bane666au, and Sandman.

Women campaigning today for Feminism are in fact redundant insofar as they're campaigning for women's rights. It makes as much sense to be a Feminist today as it does for the French to revive the revolution against their royalty and aristocracy. There's nobody left to behead. All bases are covered. And I challenge to you find one area in our society where women are exclusively or disproportionately suffering.

-Women can now work in ANY vocation they choose except Catholic Priesthood. But you can't legislate the Catholic Church - the Catholic Church legislates us.
-Women have ample social support to find refuge from abusive domestic situations through private and public funding, which is so viciously campaigned for that men's support organizations never get a slice of the pie.
-Women can now leave their marriage at-will and even claim abuse without evidence in many jurisdictions, granting them complete summary custody of the children.
-Women have imbalanced authority on the matter of sex (details can be discussed) and have been given alarming amount of ground to claim rape, beyond the street-level definition of the word.
-Women in most jurisdictions have the right to extract large sums of money from their husbands, regardless of their role of child-rearer or tax-paying worker.
-Single mothers are, in most jurisdictions (but not my own), are given ample Welfare benefits to support their children and can, at times depending on jurisdiction, collect that in conjunction with child-support. Creating a pseudo-Middle Class inflated by the Welfare State.

When you have won the war then you put away the pitchforks and put out the torches. But in the creation of an edifice to push for women's rights, a monster was born and unto this day refuses to die gracefully.
The result is women being told repeatedly that they're an oppressed minority and due a cash payout and a number of more privileges over their male counterparts. Not all women jump on the opportunity to support other women in ejecting the father from the home, illegitimately cry rape, call for the eugenic removal of men from the species, or get away with domestic abuse under the claim "I am an oppressed minority, thus I can do X" - but I assure you that many DO.

Feminists are Socialists with panties (although I have much respect for that phrase) because they are necessitating the growth of the State by replacing real fathers at home with the Daddy State which will provide without being able to express any grievances or family standards.

As a man who was raised by family, 9 of 10 of whom were women, and someone who has been married and divorced I speak from a place of authority and invite any questions for clarification.
I will, however, not suffer any shaming tactics or bullying and have no problem walking away from this forum if I am not welcome.

"Kill All Men" - Apologized for as "Just a phrase". (http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/kill-all-men/)
(http://i.imgur.com/ruoNCJX.jpg)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 23, 2014, 08:18:05 AM
I often listen to MGTOW activists like Sandman on youtube.
and I find that some of them are just as crazy as feminists.
like Barbarosa who suggests to follow him into Africa.
Sandman is little less crazy  but anyway they look more like angry traumatized "manginas" who were hurt by society and how turned into dark side, and now they are assembling their own cults like Steffan.

I personally do not find many problems with feminism, because feminists only exploit beta males, and who cares about these stupid work drones?
If you are not beta you only get benefits from feminism because other betas raise your children and feed your women while you only get good part of the deal.

Quote
And I challenge to you find one area in our society where women are exclusively or disproportionately suffering.
that would be whole society in fact.
no matter how much progress feminists made our society is still predominantly masculine (capitalistic) while females prefer feminine (socialistic) society.
and socialism is not about welfare only but about eradication of all competition.
Women want safe society where they just  work like ants doing their jobs without any fear of changes.
Women are complaining that when they enter work force men are too competitive and that puts too much stress on them. so feminists want to disallow these men to be competitive and turn everything in Soviet union where you have to do certain amount of work and get certain amount of money but if you do better than that you get nothing more.
 
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on March 23, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
Omega, I could just as easily myself say that Feminists in my eyes are nothing more than traumatized VAGINAS, hurt by society (due to unreasonably high standards) and have now turned to the dark side and now they are.... oh wait.. hang on. They already did that part. Nvm.

You're right about society as a whole being uncomfortable for women. I was, however, asking for disproportionate suffering. Society as a whole is uncomfortable for men (why do you think most social action movements outside of Feminism is 95% men).
But you're completely right, Omega. Women want the entire world to be remodeled into a womb where they can be eternally nurtured.


I was driving through suburbia to spend time with family. A somewhat regular sight is to see a woman jogging down the wasteland corridors between housing developments. This is a great sight to see. People taking care of themselves. But I'm also aware that a blink of an eye ago in our evolution, if a woman tried that she runs an alarming risk of being eaten by an animal, have her wealth stolen, be captured by a rival tribe, get raped, or many other horrible things. But she's in this womb, in this delusional land where everything is at peace, while men are sent out to die in wars and other endangering jobs to maintain this tranquility. And that's fine by me, just give me a $1 to your $0.64 and we're even.
But you know how if you eat too fast you have trouble telling when you're full?

I know you don't give a shit about the Betas, omega. But some of these MGTOW do. In my estimation, they're better Human Beings than you are. No offence. But if I had a choice of who to save I'm letting your ass drown.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 23, 2014, 03:39:33 PM
Quote
Omega, I could just as easily myself say that Feminists in my eyes are nothing more than traumatized VAGINAS, hurt by society (due to unreasonably high standards) and have now turned to the dark side and now they are.... oh wait.. hang on. They already did that part. Nvm.
I doubt if feminists were ever hurt like men, because I don't know any time in history when men decided to reject their roles. Females were more or less fine, but they just wanted more and got what they wanted.

Quote
Society as a whole is uncomfortable for men
maybe it is getting uncomfortable but it is pretty good.
As man i think fighting in war is way better than taking care of baby, because that is super boring.
yes of course war is uncomfortable but still uncomfortable in good way where you can fulfill yourself and get appropriate reward you want.
Lets take recent event in Ukraine: men were leaving their families and going into the hot zone risking to die, because they lack thrill in their life and even if it is uncomfortable it is still better than boring easy life as eat-work-sleep drone.
I can hardly imagine anything more uncomfortable for man than living in the womb.

Quote
I know you don't give a shit about the Betas, omega. But some of these MGTOW do. In my estimation, they're better Human Beings than you are. No offence. But if I had a choice of who to save I'm letting your ass drown.
If you are real MGTOW you are alpha man by definition.
And since I am I just do not care what society thinks about me or what they expect me to do.
I agree that I have very little value to society just like all real MGTOWs so your choice is logical.
Of course obedient work drone is way more useful than someone who rejects social roles and duties entirely and lives only for his own enjoyment.
 
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on March 23, 2014, 10:28:22 PM
I don't have anything to say. Just want to let you know I've read and appreciate your input on the subject.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Phil on March 23, 2014, 11:09:12 PM

Everyone Else - I read an article here that pissed me off. The title of which was inspired by "Moly" (as I see some refer to him as, and I will from now on for short-hand), and this thread is named after that article. It displayed very bitter sentiments from men. No questions are ever asked why a man might feel the need to say such things, yet when a Feminazi expresses her desire to rid the world of men via eugenics the excuse is that she was abused and is now bitter. To disregard the grievances (no matter how they're expressed) on the basis of ideology is a sin and nothing short of cruelty. I now offer my fellow men, and women with eyes with which to read, to redeem themselves from this offense towards Humanity.


Hello ZetaMan,

What specifically did you object to in the article?  Can you please provide quotes?

Are you objecting to all women or just feminists?  All feminists or just some feminists?

Do you think that belittling a groups point of view is an effective way to put forward your own point of view or that 2 wrongs make a right?

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on March 27, 2014, 12:36:16 AM
Do you think that belittling a groups point of view is an effective way to put forward your own point of view or that 2 wrongs make a right?

In order for me to belittle something it first has to have value. And with all due respect, that line about two wrongs making a right is shit brains. What wrong am I doing? QUESTIONING FEMINISM?

I'm not going to bother my sweet mind by picking parts out of something I disagree with entirely. It's the spirit of ignorance in-which the Feminist response and QuestEon's article was written in that I have a problem with. Please also bear in mind that I have a lot of respect for QE in all other concerns.

There's a delusion that has pervaded the minds of men and women alike that in today's world the woman is a victim by default, and in response there is a social movement and mentality (all gradients of which I take issue with) that ultimately serve to widen the divide between the genders and put men at an increasing disadvantage.
If we want to play the game of "which gender is oppressed" or "the most oppressed" (since we all have it hard in this society), then it is indisputably men who are the oppressed gender. That is my statement, and given that it is fact, the onus is on you to pose arguments. I assure you that I'll shoot each one down with ease.

So let's have it.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Phil on March 27, 2014, 11:59:05 PM
Do you think that belittling a groups point of view is an effective way to put forward your own point of view or that 2 wrongs make a right?

In order for me to belittle something it first has to have value. And with all due respect, that line about two wrongs making a right is shit brains. What wrong am I doing? QUESTIONING FEMINISM?

I'm not going to bother my sweet mind by picking parts out of something I disagree with entirely. It's the spirit of ignorance in-which the Feminist response and QuestEon's article was written in that I have a problem with. Please also bear in mind that I have a lot of respect for QE in all other concerns.

There's a delusion that has pervaded the minds of men and women alike that in today's world the woman is a victim by default, and in response there is a social movement and mentality (all gradients of which I take issue with) that ultimately serve to widen the divide between the genders and put men at an increasing disadvantage.
If we want to play the game of "which gender is oppressed" or "the most oppressed" (since we all have it hard in this society), then it is indisputably men who are the oppressed gender. That is my statement, and given that it is fact, the onus is on you to pose arguments. I assure you that I'll shoot each one down with ease.

So let's have it.

You have chosen not to answer my first two questions directly. 

It is not clear to me exactly what you are objecting to.  Personally, I have never met an advocate for women's rights who jokes about "killing men."  I have met many people who are quietly and persistently working to correct injustices, regardless of whether they be toward men, women or children.  It is possible to be an advocate for one group without adversely affecting the other; win/lose approaches never work well in the long term.  What exactly do you hope to achieve for men by your approach?  Do you think that telling people that they are ignorant and deluded is going to start a constructive dialogue? 

What has value or not is in the eye of the beholder.  That you see no value in anything does not mean it has no value in someone else's eyes.  The free market is an abstract system that indicates what something is collectively worth at any given time.  Just because one person has no use for something does not mean that it is worthless and one person can never presume to speak for everyone. 

I was curious about your point of view and asked you questions in order to understand it better.  Yet you wrote, "the onus is on you to pose arguments" why should I?  I am not the one who started this thread.

I also note that you have brought up an article that QE wrote, yet you have not bothered to specify exactly which article you are talking about.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Elucidated on March 28, 2014, 05:35:08 AM
But you're completely right, Omega. Women want the entire world to be remodeled into a womb where they can be eternally nurtured.
Thanks for clarifying what it is that I want Zetaman. What is it that men want?


Omega said:
Quote from: Omega
As man I think fighting in war is way better than taking care of baby, because that is super boring. yes of course war is uncomfortable but still uncomfortable in good way where you can fulfill yourself and get appropriate reward you want.”
I could take his comment and say that all men want to do is to fight and kill, but I know that's not true and wouldn't presume to make such a sweeping statement as to attribute the traits of some, to half the World's population.


I was driving through suburbia to spend time with family. A somewhat regular sight is to see a woman jogging down the wasteland corridors between housing developments. This is a great sight to see. People taking care of themselves. But I'm also aware that a blink of an eye ago in our evolution, if a woman tried that she runs an alarming risk of being eaten by an animal, have her wealth stolen, be captured by a rival tribe, get raped, or many other horrible things. But she's in this womb, in this delusional land where everything is at peace, while men are sent out to die in wars and other endangering jobs to maintain this tranquility.

I'm not sure what you're saying here but it seems like this 'womb' women want is just not to be eaten, stolen, or raped, and that it's delusional in some way. Is this delusion exclusive to women or would a man out jogging in suburbia be equally deluded?

while men are sent out to die in wars and other endangering jobs to maintain this tranquility.

Have you ever been sent to war Zetaman? I'm guessing not, so does that mean that you are living in delusional womb-land of tranquillity maintained by other men and women endangering their lives? Women make up 20% of the US armed forces by the way.

Very few countries have conscription any more, joining the forces is usually voluntary so they don't 'get sent' without signing up for it, and as Omega's comment testifies, there are many men who would rather kill than nurture. No doubt some women too.

Actually as a women, what I want is to be treated by society as a person first and foremost without gender bias, either positive or negative, coming in to it, and I would like to see the same for men. It is negative attitudes such as yours, that fuel the fire of Radical feminism. As Phil so rightly says:
Quote from: Phil
It is possible to be an advocate for one group without adversely affecting the other; win/lose approaches never work well in the long term

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 28, 2014, 08:57:03 AM
Quote
Thanks for clarifying what it is that I want Zetaman. What is it that men want?
men want to be useful and irreplaceable. we want world full of suffering so that we could be white knights who save people from black knights. We want problems we can solve and prove out superiority and domination.
Women used to provide all that to men, to keep them happy. Now, when state took these responsibilities on itself, men are obsolete.
We take another forms of competition and domination and ignore women.

I could take his comment and say that all men want to do is to fight and kill, but I know that's not true and wouldn't presume to make such a sweeping statement as to attribute the traits of some, to half the World's population.
war is not about killing and fighting it is about winning and domination. Modern war is very "feminine" because it lacks any action or heroism.
 and that does not mean all men want that, it means stereotypical man wants that. If you do not want winning and domination you lack masculine traits.

if there is woman which like these things she is masculine. and some women should be regarded as men not women, because they lack femininity and behave like stereotypical men.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 28, 2014, 11:50:48 AM
You are admitting here that you are making up these definitions of men/women/masculinity/femininity yourself, and trying to fit reality to it.  Your ideas are not based on reality, or the real behavior of men and women, because if something contradicts your flawed definitions, you simply re-categorize it, as if your personal biases matter more than someone's real biology and real behavior.

This is something delusional people do to distort reality.

There is not such thing as real behavior of men and women because everyone is different.
I am sure nobody will be capable to provide any definition of man and woman which fits everyone properly.

What I observe, currently,  more or less match my model of reality.
However I admit it may be just forced social roles or another side may be well hidden. It would be nice to see more females who fit male stereotypes and are focused on domination instead of procreation. I like idea implemented in Sweden to raise children as completely sexually neutral individual and allow them to chose whatever role they want. Being male or female should be matter of choice.

I support feminists on equality of sexes but I don't support this idea to turn world into safe place where government takes credit for everything.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Elucidated on March 28, 2014, 02:51:18 PM
 So to summarise your points on this thread #Omega;
And your points from another thread; http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=700.0 (http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=700.0) And your point from your last post:

There is not such thing as real behavior of men and women because everyone is different.

Do you see what you did there?

It would be nice to see more females who fit male stereotypes and are focused on domination instead of procreation.
- no, it would evolutionarily ridiculous

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 28, 2014, 04:23:57 PM
Are you speaking for all men or just yourself (using a royal "we")?  If you (or others) truly believe men want this sort of thing, shouldn't it make sense that all people would be more afraid of men/ other men than women or "feminists"?
and do you claim that it is not like that? men are always portrayed as violent dominant beasts.
every time you see man in any movie it is always active dominant, either he is trying to destroy the world either he is trying to save world, while women are just objects that need to be protected.

I wonder if how do you feel when you are alone and meet meet group of drunk males and drunk females at light which one is more scary, I doubt if you see any danger in females ever, while if we see males it is completely different.
Elucidated also complains that she is afraid of being raped. How many men are afraid to be raped by females?

I completely understand feminists who essentially hate male nature, and they are right.

Quote
The reason I don't believe that you are ok with people making their own choices is that you don't seem ok with the choices they're making right now.

and why not? I do not like current situation because I just cant find any female friends, since all females I meet are incompatible. I want female which cloud be my friend in my quest of world domination not some housekeeper or sex doll.
But of course it is irrelevant how kids are being raised today  will not be able to enjoy results anyway, so it is more like scientific curiosity if you raise girl as boy will she become a man.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 28, 2014, 04:38:42 PM
So to summarise your points on this thread #Omega;
  • Men want superiority and domination.
  • Winning and domination are masculine traits.
  • Modern war is very "feminine" because it lacks any action or heroism.
  • some women should be regarded as men not women, because they lack femininity and behave like stereotypical men.
  • Women want a safe society where they just work like ant.
And your points from another thread; [url]http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=700.0[/url] ([url]http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=700.0[/url])
  • Woman live in world of delusions, and don't care about truth.
  • They like to build their world as imitation.
  • You have to lie to women to get their love.
  • They usually just want affirmation.
  • Woman reject sources of uncomfortable information.
And your point from your last post:

There is not such thing as real behavior of men and women because everyone is different.

Do you see what you did there?


No I don't see anything  no contradictions so far.
I never said that these are applicable to everyone.


Quote
- no, it would evolutionarily ridiculous

f*ck that evolution, we are not obligated to behave in evolutionary preferable ways.
we are free to chose any path in life.
and if you worship evolution you are in favor of patriarchal society,
They worship evolution as their official god. Primary goal of patriarchy is survival of species ignoring all individual happiness.

If you support feminism you should ignore evolution and put your own happiness on top of everything.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Elucidated on March 28, 2014, 04:43:40 PM

Elucidated also complains that she is afraid of being raped.
Whaaat - I never said any such thing!

I do not like current situation because I just cant find any female friends, since all females I meet are incompatible. I want female which cloud be my friend in my quest of world domination not some housekeeper or sex doll.
Is this how you see yourself as an alpha male, Omega?
You are full of contradictions.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 28, 2014, 05:41:40 PM
Whaaat - I never said any such thing!
You said this
Quote
seems like this 'womb' women want is just not to be eaten, stolen, or
Quote
raped


Quote
Is this how you see yourself as an alpha male, Omega?
You are full of contradictions.
How is that related to me being alpha male?

Quote
You are full of contradictions.
It is cynicism not contradictions.
What I do here I just talk about world as some abstract thing, which works according to its own rules and I must find those rules to use them, but I do not have any interest to participate in this  society.
naturally I need to maintain different concepts of good and evil, because for example I Understand that evolution and society is necessary for survival of human species but I personally do not care about survival so I see attempts of survival as something bad for me.
I would prefer society to focus on fun and happiness whats would naturally result total collapse.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Elucidated on March 28, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
Whaaat - I never said any such thing!
You said this
Quote
seems like this 'womb' women want is just not to be eaten, stolen, or
Quote
raped

If you read the whole thing you'll see that I was paraphrasing Zetaman not putting forward my own position

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Anarchist on March 28, 2014, 05:55:33 PM
Please also bear in mind that I have a lot of respect for QE in all other concerns.
That's a strong sign that your complaints aren't based in fact but in ideology.

One reason is that people tend to use that sort of phrasing when they like what someone says but then that someone says something against their ideology. The other is that you've made it clear what your ideology is (you've also made it clear you lack understanding of what feminism is by, like ideologues, highlighting perverse and rare examples as if they're both central and commonplace) and you disagree with him 'only' in one area.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on March 28, 2014, 06:00:56 PM
If you read the whole thing you'll see that I was paraphrasing Zetaman not putting forward my own position
why do you take everything so personally?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Anarchist on March 28, 2014, 06:04:40 PM
why do you take everything so personally?
I was thinking that you were probably a troll but maybe you just weren't all there. Now I strongly suspect you're the same troll that was on YouTube recently.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Elucidated on March 28, 2014, 06:16:01 PM
If you read the whole thing you'll see that I was paraphrasing Zetaman not putting forward my own position
why do you take everything so personally?

I'm out
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on April 23, 2014, 09:31:32 PM
I'm sorry I disappeared from this thread (and forum) folks, but I was busy having all my shit f*cked up by a Feminism-inspired woman who still to this day says she loves me despite showing that she has absolutely no regard for anything higher than her own selfish wants and desires.

I honestly can't follow this thread anymore. I've stated my FACTS and experience as a Western male. My detractors may f*ck off and take a Sociology course and study Evolutionary Psychology before they expect me to read and respond to their crap. No offense... despite the fact it most-definitely would be interpreted with offense. :D

I am MGTOW - HEAR MY ROAR
Global male strike begins 3 years ago. Support AVFM, support Zeta Males, support MGTOW, support Grass Eaters.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on May 24, 2014, 12:46:20 AM
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2013/R314-130821.php (http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2013/R314-130821.php)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 04, 2014, 01:05:30 AM
Okay, sorry but this is ridiculous. Men aren't bent on dominating people by nature. They are trained to be how they often are through the prevailing culture. Don't buy into any of that 'alpha male' business guys. If you need proof of that, I will refer to the work of Robert Sapolsky who has spent his entire life studying baboon behaviour. One of his most intriguing findings was that when one of the baboon packs got ill from eating garbage, all of the aggressive males and male who were not sociable or friendly to the females and others simply died (presumably, these alpha males ate more of the infected garbage than the others). What happened after that, was the culture (yes!) of the baboon tribe changed, such that it wasn't acceptable to unload rage on your fellow baboon, even if they be smaller than you, female, or baby. And there was lots of social grooming. Most interestingly, newcomer males migrating from othor tribes conformed and adjusted to this mutual 'understanding'.

No it wasn't a deliberate experiment -- just to make it clear, this happened as a sort of bittersweet accident, because some people in a tourist camp were careless with their rubbish. Sapolsky himself was distraught by the incident, but nonetheless it revealed important information on ape behaviour.

Edit: Robert, not David xP
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 04, 2014, 01:25:32 AM
Zetaman and Omega, you don't know what feminism is. I suggest you listen to Phil. Feminists address the issues of women, but feminism branches out into issues affecting other areas to do with equality.

Lastly your vitriol is offensive to women, feminist and non-feminist alike. It is stuff like what is on FDR nowadays (Stef championing the position of anti-feminist) and what people say here that makes feminists, woman and man and trans alike, gravely concerned. Because what I see, is hate speech.

We are all individuals here. ZetaMan: "all my shit f*cked up by a Feminism-inspired woman who still to this day says she loves me despite showing that she has absolutely no regard for anything higher than her own selfish wants and desires." It doesn't matter that she is a feminist, as this has nothing to do with feminism. All that amounts to is an ad hominem. No, it doesn't discredit feminism when someone acts messed up, as again being selfish or narcissistic is not what feminism is for. You might disagree, but that is so.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 04, 2014, 05:24:12 AM
Thanks for the info regarding baboon tribes. Interesting and revealing.

You're a smart rabbit, you can figure things out for yourself, so I'll point out your misconceptions and you can go listen to and read the many educated minds that elucidate my points:

Not going to argue these points unless you take the time to research the many resources available to you online and you come back with more finer points of argument.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 05, 2014, 12:59:14 AM

Not going to argue these points unless you take the time to research the many resources available to you online and you come back with more finer points of argument.

I just want to comment on this as an argument technique, regardless of the topic.

I do not think that this is fair and it does not address the points put forward by other posters. 



Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 05, 2014, 09:21:04 AM
Zetaman and Omega, you don't know what feminism is. I suggest you listen to Phil. Feminists address the issues of women, but feminism branches out into issues affecting other areas to do with equality.
I know very well what feminism was and what it is now.
It has nothing to do with equality, which is completely impossible in this situation.
problem is with different perception of environment by men and women. If you put 2 different people in same environment they will not be equally satisfied.

IF you place boxer and chess master in boxing ring they both receive equal treatment but obviously they have very different wining chances.

Modern feminism is jut that: it is women attempting to reshape boxing ring into chess table they are trying to change rules in a way that suit women while completely disregarding interests of men.

Traditional society has 2 separate world for men and women where each were living by their own rules, now we have single world for everyone which is unfortunately shaped to suit women only.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 05, 2014, 10:14:56 AM
Bang on, Omega. Which is why the MRA do not bring a message of hate. We just get the flack you naturally get by telling people they're doing something incorrectly.


Not going to argue these points unless you take the time to research the many resources available to you online and you come back with more finer points of argument.

I just want to comment on this as an argument technique, regardless of the topic.

I do not think that this is fair and it does not address the points put forward by other posters.

If you want fair, then go to group therapy.
What exactly do I OWE this person or anyone else? Nothing. I'm a free agent who has decided to aid the process of a free society by speaking my truth. I cannot speak on this subject at the level of sophistication that is currently required of me.
If I do not have license to tell someone to do their due diligence before they strawman the subject by expecting convincement from me, I am only left with two other options:

I'm sorry, but that's shit brains. Just because I won't pander to your intellectual laziness does not give you the right to cry abuse or neglect.
Do your due diligence, and then we'll talk about the particulars (e.g. does this theory make sense against X or Y).
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 05, 2014, 07:05:44 PM
Bang on, Omega. Which is why the MRA do not bring a message of hate. We just get the flack you naturally get by telling people they're doing something incorrectly.


Not going to argue these points unless you take the time to research the many resources available to you online and you come back with more finer points of argument.

I just want to comment on this as an argument technique, regardless of the topic.

I do not think that this is fair and it does not address the points put forward by other posters.

If you want fair, then go to group therapy.
What exactly do I OWE this person or anyone else? Nothing. I'm a free agent who has decided to aid the process of a free society by speaking my truth. I cannot speak on this subject at the level of sophistication that is currently required of me.
If I do not have license to tell someone to do their due diligence before they strawman the subject by expecting convincement from me, I am only left with two other options:
  • Pretend that I am a Doctor or that I've studied this subject for years. This won't only harm my position, but the others who hold it who would rather someone like me not embarrass them.
  • Not open my mouth at all, EVER, until I've got my Ph.D, I've read studies, and worked in a related field for 20 years. You're essentially telling me that I can't, through my natural intelligences, come to a conclusion about anything unless I have spent the better part of my life investigating it and can then successfully convince someone else.

I'm sorry, but that's shit brains. Just because I won't pander to your intellectual laziness does not give you the right to cry abuse or neglect.
Do your due diligence, and then we'll talk about the particulars (e.g. does this theory make sense against X or Y).

Your response is unintelligible to me but it doesn't matter, as I made it clear that I was not entering the debate.  Please don't drag me into it, as I do not want to waste my time debating something that hasn't been clearly defined from the start.

What I am doing is calling you out on an unfair technique in putting forward your argument.  It is irrelevant what the argument is about as the principles of logic and fairness apply, regardless of the subject or level of education.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 05, 2014, 08:09:49 PM
Don't go blaming me for the inevitable. You can stop participating without making a scene over it. What are you really trying to acheive?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 05, 2014, 11:19:57 PM
Part 1:

Since I wasn't clear, I will be: " Feminists in my eyes are nothing more than traumatized VAGINAS" is an example of misogynistic hate speech you wrote. Another one (not written by you) would be "I hope you get raped" is another one common to misogynists with Internet Courage. There are many examples as well of this kind of speech -- just read the way Stefan writes his review on the movie "Frozen" (titled: "The Truth About Frozen" or somesuch), publicly available on his forum. It is dripping with contempt. One particularly absurd gem was "this dull bovine woman". (He's calling the woman a dumb cow???)

But, those are only examples. I haven't the time nor the stomach to point out every instance, but if one needed help, one could poll members of that gender on how they feel about hearing such...descriptions. Reading over the thread again, I note that really the only hate speech per se is that one I listed in the 1st paragraph, but it certainly colored my overall impression. The stuff Omega and Zetaman have written is troubling, but they are entitled to their views.

Whatever frustration you may have, go ahead and speak your views, but don't resort to name calling (as is evident by my popping in, there are other people reading this!!). Logic and evidence stands above all else.

Part 2:

Since I gave a quick summary of Sapolsky's work, would you summarize Warren's?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 06, 2014, 06:39:57 AM
Whatever frustration you may have, go ahead and speak your views, but don't resort to name calling (as is evident by my popping in, there are other people reading this!!). Logic and evidence stands above all else.

However I see that neither logic or evidence is allowed when talking about women, since you expect everyone to worship them like goddesses.

and if you enter word of men prepare to fight, because that's how men work we do not spare each other feelings and use whatever weapons we have to win If you cant handle name calling you cannot say anything about equality.

I believe that If woman is "dumb cow" she deserved to be called like that just as when man is "stupid goat" we say so. And considering that many women stay at home doing mundane chores they typically become dumb cows. They just have no time to improve themselves learn new things and advance.

This your desire of political correctness is  exactly what I hate about women.
There is a lot of name calling towards men but nobody cares.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: QuestEon on June 06, 2014, 08:21:42 AM
Whatever frustration you may have, go ahead and speak your views, but don't resort to name calling (as is evident by my popping in, there are other people reading this!!). Logic and evidence stands above all else.

I have to echo Lee Li's point here.

What I see in this thread are mostly generalizations and "You believe that because you're a ____" (fill in the blank) type of arguments. (Argument from Personal Attack). It just doesn't seem to be a high-quality discussion.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 06, 2014, 09:01:55 AM
There is a lot of name calling towards men but nobody cares.

I certainly care about that, but why add the "towards men"? Name-calling and generalized shaming are not good practices irrespective of the target.

However I see that neither logic or evidence is allowed when talking about women, since you expect everyone to worship them like goddesses.

I see nothing of the kind. Where has Lee Li said he expects everyone to worship women like goddesses? I think that's a strawman applied to those of us who would insist on defending our sisters as well as our brothers. As for logic and evidence, those things have to be carefully presented. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who disagrees with me lacks logic and evidence period, although they might (like me) in some instances.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on June 06, 2014, 10:44:00 AM
To me, a high-quality discussion looks like this:
In other words, the kind of thread a 3rd party can stumble across years later and still get a lot out of, because it is content-dense, and isn't bloated by pages of chat/squabbling between individuals.

Maybe we can boil it down to "If you don't have something good to say, don't say anything at all." "Good" doesn't mean "politically-correct" (whatever that is....), it means the post enhances the quality of the discussion rather than bloating it (as described above).

I think the best way to cut down on bloat is to not engage. A personal argument between strangers on a message board is not likely to lead anywhere productive. Let's all aim higher.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Elucidated on June 06, 2014, 11:55:25 AM
I echo the sentiments of Lee Li, QuestEon, Kaz & Argent above.

 I have been put off from engaging in any discussions here recently as I see too many personal attacks and insults rather than points addressed. On top of this, generalizations and opinions are being put forward as 'evidence' which makes for a very poor quality discussion.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 06, 2014, 01:29:45 PM
I certainly care about that, but why add the "towards men"? Name-calling and generalized shaming are not good practices irrespective of the target.

so why do you brag only about hatred towards women but when women discus how all men must be castrated that gets no attention?
when women call men animals brutes etc that also seem to be fine.
Did you even listened to what famous feminists say and what insane hatred towards men they radiate?
You may claim that you are against disrespecting men but do you ever said anything in regards of that ?
why wont we discuss what feminists are talking on their lectures for a change.

Of course I agree that here we should not use personal attack tactic, but claims towards group is not personal attack.

Quote
I see nothing of the kind. Where has Lee Li said he expects everyone to worship women like goddesses? I think that's a strawman applied to those of us who would insist on defending our sisters as well as our brothers. As for logic and evidence, those things have to be carefully presented. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who disagrees with me lacks logic and evidence period, although they might (like me) in some instances.

So how do you explain that aggression towards anyone who dares to say anything bad about women?
Lack of logic is when instead of argument you make accusations about hatred or insensitivity.
Disagreement is completely expected and even required for discussion to take place, if you agree on everything, there is no discussion.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 06, 2014, 01:34:46 PM
To me, a high-quality discussion looks like this:
And unfortunately there are no discussions like that.
this forum is lacking discussion at all, it is just same as FDR where everyone is supposed to comfort everyone and attack those who have different opinion.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: BicameralMilieu on June 06, 2014, 02:36:50 PM
This thread has jumped the shark...
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 06, 2014, 02:55:51 PM
To me, a high-quality discussion looks like this:
...

I think you're generally right, but it sounds prescriptive and I'm wary of guidelines.
Anyway, I enjoy shorts and one-liners too. Some of those long ones are, well, long (mine especially - I am constitutionally long-winded - my wife once accused me of psychological violence due to talking too much).
I also enjoy threads like this, which although it is guilty of just about everything you could throw at it and more besides, is actually compelling and a bit challenging. I think posters able to rile up a thread or a forum a little are actually doing a good job. Any sort of scandal's always worth a read in my book... even a raised eyebrow gives me a chuckle.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 06, 2014, 03:11:27 PM
this forum is lacking discussion at all, it is just same as FDR where everyone is supposed to comfort everyone and attack those who have different opinion.

Oh come come Omega, it's like herding cats with you. What kind of relationship did you have with your parents as a child? (just joking). There is a fairly high level of consensus on the forum because we know rather a lot about our subject matter and we have gone a fair distance in establishing some basic truths in relation to it. Posting confrontationally on a forum that one has only just joined is sometimes called trolling and will elicit hostility wherever you go. I would treat you just the same if you were to come into my house and complain about the colour of the curtains right off the bat.
That the forum lacks discussion is no more than your opinion. I think it has plenty of discussion thanks, as I have acknowledged above, also to confrontational posters like you... however long your tenure (he added, darkly). I like chillout, you like jazz, end of. I said it before and I'll say it again, you are one-sided sir, you lack your alpha... and interestingly, another challenging poster on this thread alone is also a Greek letter - the sixth, although in the English language it occupies the same role as yours, at the very tail end of the alphabet. Is there a meaning concealed in that apparent coincidence, I wonder?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on June 06, 2014, 03:26:40 PM
To me, a high-quality discussion looks like this:
...

I think you're generally right, but it sounds prescriptive and I'm wary of guidelines.
Anyway, I enjoy shorts and one-liners too. Some of those long ones are, well, long (mine especially - I am constitutionally long-winded - my wife once accused me of psychological violence due to talking too much).
I also enjoy threads like this, which although it is guilty of just about everything you could throw at it and more besides, is actually compelling and a bit challenging. I think posters able to rile up a thread or a forum a little are actually doing a good job. Any sort of scandal's always worth a read in my book... even a raised eyebrow gives me a chuckle.

People say that to me a lot about prescription. I think it's partially how I word things. I'm not suggesting we establish such strict rules that people are afraid to speak, but I don't see a problem with laying out a vision for the quality of discussion we want to find here, and then attempting to adhere to it.

If I want a stream of mostly throwaway comments to keep me occupied at all hours, I go to reddit, etc. When I come here, I'm looking for something a little more timeless. That said, provocative is ok in my book! But there's a difference between provocative and squabble that looks like it's been dragged into 2 or 3 different threads simultaneously, based more on the commenters' desire to argue with each other than on the original intent of the thread.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 06, 2014, 04:24:58 PM
People say that to me a lot about prescription.

Don't get me started on that one! Fortunately for my compatriots I live alone, but when anyone has the misfortune to encounter me on my home turf I get out my rulebook right off the bat and start telling them this and that and wotnot (eat this, like that, question the other, enjoy this movie, interpret it like this, retire at this time...) - I think that's probably why I'm sensitive to the issue!
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 06, 2014, 05:27:25 PM
just the same if you were to come into my house and complain about the colour of the curtains right off the bat.
Nobody is complaining about anything of that sort, neither I try to be extremely provocative.
I always try to stay on topic and not to derail threads. but this thread is about feminism where my opinion somewhat similar to what thread author says so I guess it was completely legitimate to express my opinion.
All complains we have here is about lack of political correctness and supposed hatred towards women that come from people who do not even participate in discussion.

Quote
Is there a meaning concealed in that apparent coincidence, I wonder?
No there is no meaning, his letter comes from MGTOW therminology mine just random.
But is we apply same logic I am just farther in the end.
So since zeta male is one who stays away from gender roles. I just go further and stay away from society entirely, just observing it without any desire to participate.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 06, 2014, 08:38:20 PM
Personally, I find the thread jumping around too much for me to address much of anything. I get the general idea, but attempts to respond to the overall idea would be too vague for my liking. The best general response I can give would be that I suggest questioning one's true nature and just how did we get to be the way we are now? Here's the video clip of what I was talking about: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A4UMyTnlaMY

I digest ideas better when they are broken down into smaller parts. Thus it would be impossible for me to respond to every part Omega's and Zetaman's posts, as much as I would like to address every small thing at once. Since I am aware of the possibility of information overload, I also want to avoid doing that to the reader. The most important issue with Information Overload is that it impairs one's ability to respond coherently, because the number of things to address and the work involved in that creates a sense of urgency, an emotional response, and an cloudy, often irrational, thinking process.

So I'll just pick out a few more of Zetaman's things I know I can respond to.

Quote
Women ... have been given alarming amount of ground to claim rape, beyond the street-level definition of the word.

Perhaps ironically, the majority of rape does occur inside the home or in other familiar places, with familiar people. This is probably the case not only for women, but for men as well. The 'street' rape is very rare. Of course, I am left a bit speechless by the clear message being conveyed here: that if it didn't happen in a surprise attack by a stranger on the street or in the wild, then it's not real. Is that your firm belief?

Quote
And I challenge to you find one area in our society where women are exclusively or disproportionately suffering.
Domestic violence, rape, poverty, income inequality, sexual objectification, and (still) in some countries, human rights.

But why do we need to have an oppression Olympics here, you know? Is this about "we suffer more than them" or what?

I hope I haven't written too much, but the temptation to respond to more than a few things is quite strong when so much has been written already. To that end, I don't mind if we try to simplify the discussion.

Edit: forgot to link the video
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 07, 2014, 07:07:18 AM
I think you are breaking rules of discussion:
Instead of providing arguments to prove your opponent wrong, you resort to personal attack:
"Is that your firm belief"
or emotional manipulation : listing how women suffer.
Neither beliefs of Zetaman or ways how women suffer have any importance.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 07, 2014, 09:58:41 AM
Since I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the sentence I quoted, it is important to be sure that what I think Zetaman said is correct.

And since Zetaman asked specifically for ways in which women suffer disproportionately to men, I am entirely on topic.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 07, 2014, 12:20:58 PM
Well, I would say that my beliefs on this matter are relevant because I base them on information I have absorbed. I consider myself quite objective and fair. So if I "believe" something, you can be certain that there's a damn good reason.

Lee Li:
No. I do not believe that if you get raped by someone you know, then it's not rape. That's some wild idea right there. I'm at a loss as to why I have to clarify what I meant by that abstract, but I shall:
A woman who knows you can falsely claim you raped her. She will be believed until she finally turns around and admits to her criminality or it is revealed in a Court of Law, but you as an otherwise law-abiding man will have that stigma. It sticks.
We need to entertain the idea that women do not automatically have more integrity (as our biological programming urges us to believe) and realise that women can be assholes who will pull that claim on men they don't like and want to destroy. They can claim that if they aren't satisfied by a sexual encounter or if the man doesn't speak to them the next day.

Sexual relations is and has always been a minefield. Now that the law has been amended to give women extra consideration in these affairs, it is now mostly a minefield for men.

As for the list of things women suffer, I have two things to say: First of all, I rarely see a woman suffer these problems. I just hear about it on television and radio from people who don't live normal lives like we do. Secondly, men suffer from these exact same plights. You just haven't taken the time to look.
You can find proof of my claim from people on Youtube like ManWomanMyth, Bane666, The Mayor of MGTOWN etc etc etc etc. But I will refer to each of your listed sufferings in brief.


Don't just take what I say, refuse to do your due diligence, and then attempt to argue these points with me. You have to display some intellectual honesty here for the sake of our entire species.

-------------
Anecdotes Re: rape
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/this-is-what-a-child-molester-looks-like-nsfw/ (http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/this-is-what-a-child-molester-looks-like-nsfw/) (NSFW - images may upset)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31150/18-year-old-woman-convicted-rape.html)
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/tucker-carlson-says-rape-is-great/ (http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/tucker-carlson-says-rape-is-great/)
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/high-school-teacher-leah-bakely-teaches-how-to-make-false-rape-accusations/ (http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/high-school-teacher-leah-bakely-teaches-how-to-make-false-rape-accusations/)
http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynarchy/rapey-logic-laci-green-redefines-rape/ (http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynarchy/rapey-logic-laci-green-redefines-rape/)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 07, 2014, 01:39:30 PM
Zetaman,

The amount of time it would take for me to go through the materials you have offered me, and the independent research I would also need to do to verify the quality of information, is more than I can spare because I have full time commitments at work and school, and relationships as well. It would take me a few weeks/months. So rather than wait for that before responding, I'll say I appreciate the data you've given me Zetaman, and I will look into it further when I have time.

My impression is that men and women are both oppressed in their own ways by rigid gender roles, and it sounds like some feminist trends may have failed to bring about equality, instead reinforcing inequality in a different way -- for example, it should not be appropriately feminist to act to undermine women's autonomy and responsibility. That would be a failure in my eyes. In fact some feminists (myself and my partner) would consider it patriarchal in of itself, because denying a woman's ability to take responsibility is denying her agency and humanity. That would be a destructive trend for both men and women.

If the facts you listed are correct, Zetaman, then we need to fix these. I am aware that men, for example, die more by their own hand. And, it would be nice if men had the chance to opt for birth control rather than relying entirely upon the woman's ability to take a pill, for example. I think if people just stopped hating and stopped making it about "who suffers more" (which amounts to infighting), then we could achieve true gender equality (among other equalities)**.

Edit: **At least, we could start really solving problems.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 07, 2014, 02:09:04 PM
I think you'd find that after discovering the facts and sources I've provided are accurate that the main thesis of this thread (Feminism is just Marxism in panties) stands up. It IS an affront to gender differentiation itself in order to create a world of absolute equals.

May I ask you a question?
If, as a Feminist, you would be angered by the infantilization of women and you equally support the rights of men, then why do you name your social ideal after one of the genders? I'm not insinuating any maliciousness on your part, just asking you to take note of something that flies straight over all our heads. There can be many reasons why someone who supports the rights of both genders would name their movement after one of the genders... but I'd like to hear why you'd continue to call yourself a Feminist in that light.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 07, 2014, 07:47:03 PM
I think you'd find that after discovering the facts and sources I've provided are accurate that the main thesis of this thread (Feminism is just Marxism in panties) stands up. It IS an affront to gender differentiation itself in order to create a world of absolute equals.

May I ask you a question?
If, as a Feminist, you would be angered by the infantilization of women and you equally support the rights of men, then why do you name your social ideal after one of the genders? I'm not insinuating any maliciousness on your part, just asking you to take note of something that flies straight over all our heads. There can be many reasons why someone who supports the rights of both genders would name their movement after one of the genders... but I'd like to hear why you'd continue to call yourself a Feminist in that light.

Marxism and feminism go well together in my experience, because they are all about equality. The two philosophies are like peanut butter and jelly; there is a good harmony there. However the same goes for LGBT rights, immigration activism, anti-racism, animal rights, anarchism, unorganized religion, environmentalism, and more I can't think of.

The philosophies are not always found together. There are Marxists who are not feminists, and Marxists who say "we'll deal with feminist issues AFTER the proletarian revolution", as well as feminists who are Keynesian or capitalists. Not all feminists wear any particular garment either, and there are a good many male feminists as well as female, and everywhere in between (LGBT). I'm just saying this to say that there is certainly a common thread (Equality), but people's opinions and priorities are as diverse as their personalities. These tendencies in thought encompass the political left wing!

As for why it's called feminism, that has been asked and debated a lot. Sometimes I prefer the term egalitarian because it gets the point across, depending on who I talk to. Feminism brings up a lot of assumptions. So why feminism? Because feminism is a particular type of egalitarianism. Furthermore, the patriarchy hurts all sexes and genders.


https://usilive.org/why-i-call-myself-a-feminist-and-not-an-egalitarian/
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 07, 2014, 08:07:34 PM
I thought of another thing

Quote
As for the list of things women suffer, I have two things to say: First of all, I rarely see a woman suffer these problems. I just hear about it on television and radio from people who don't live normal lives like we do.

Where do you live, sir? (Rhetorical question, don't answer :).) I don't know what this 'normal' life is. I've seen and experienced (either personally or witnessed someone else in person) the majority of those things on a routine basis. Everyone's favorite word around here is 'bitch'. If I had a penny for every time...I'd be rich. No, there is no normal...but there is privilege.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 07, 2014, 08:33:36 PM
Where do you live, sir? (Rhetorical question, don't answer :).) I don't know what this 'normal' life is. I've seen and experienced (either personally or witnessed someone else in person) the majority of those things on a routine basis. Everyone's favorite word around here is 'bitch'. If I had a penny for every time...I'd be rich. No, there is no normal...but there is privilege.

By normal I mean a life that's spent dealing with people of a wide variety of classes. Not sealed inside a gated house, only stepping outside to seal oneself up again in a modern car, to go to a university of television studio to tell everyone else how to live. And that's not privilege, that's a wasted life and wasted resources.

And what's wrong with calling a person a bitch? Are you seriously going to tell me that this is a form of oppression? What about the women that call women a bitch? Oh wait, that's internalised sexism lol. Maybe the men who call women bitches instinctively feel the game is stacked against them and that's the best they can do. They can't hit them for some reason nobody has been able to explain yet. If a man gives another man grief, the man receiving said grief kicks the crap out of the other man... so generally grief isn't given under threat of violence - and that's how it should be. But when a woman gives a man grief in full knowledge she won't have to suffer a tangible backlash, all that man can do is "verbally assault" her.

Unless you're talking about "bitch" in the context you hear it in a rap video. Well that's the realm of a minority of men, just as you have a minority of women who do infinitely more sinister things to men that largely go unnoticed.

There's no gender disparity here. It's a figment of your imagination fueled by Communist propaganda.

---------


I try to boil things down and stay on point when discussing things with people and when trying to reach a practical solution. I couldn't read this diatribe due to it's setup which includes skipped premises, and I find your explanation to be a bit of a dodge.
Let me ask my question this way: Unless you're planning to replace what you say is a Patriarchy with a Matriarchy, why use the term Feminism and perpetuate the notion that women are the exclusively oppressed gender?

It comes down to the bare etymology of a word and what that conveys. Feminist (when describing yourself and the movement) comes from Feminine, Female. Favouring or empowering the Feminine. By definition you're excluding the masculine and there is no way around this.
To demonstrate: I'm a White Anarcho-Nationalist. I'm many thing, as are you, but for this conversation I'm a White Anarcho-Nationalist. I'm not a White Supremacist, but the level of comprehension that most people have doesn't allow them to separate the two. I favour my race and heritage because I am of that race and heritage. I respect and wish peace and cultural integrity for every race and nationality on the planet, but my race comes first. I think my race deserves extra attention from it's own kind. However, if I were to embrace and empower ALL races and cultures on the earth I would be an Anarcho-Nationalist or just an Anarchist.
You may say you support the empowerment of both genders, but you're favouring one of the genders by using the terminology of that gender. 200 years from now, people reading about you will automatically get the impression you favour the female gender.

People mix and match all sorts of things, like with religion. One aspect gets traded in for another, and next thing you know nobody can tell you whether Buddhism originated from the Vedas or came about independent of "Hinduism".
I'm certain you'd find with investigation of the Bolshevik Revolution that the notion of women being (or aught to be) exactly like men is a Marxist ideal. Americanism all on it's own would have been enough to make certain that women were equal with men under the Law, but Feminism is something else entirely.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 08, 2014, 12:11:40 AM
Quote
Let me ask my question this way: Unless you're planning to replace what you say is a Patriarchy with a Matriarchy, why use the term Feminism and perpetuate the notion that women are the exclusively oppressed gender?

Why do Men's Rights Activists call themselves that? Presumably it's because they want to have a specialized group or movement that deals with men's issues. Right? Or is it? Because that's why feminism. Or do they want to have a patriarchy? Which is it, then? Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA. It also begs the question why people form any group under a similar manner. I hope that answers your question.

I  am not about to argue about why saying bitch is wrong. I hoped you might understand, but clearly not. You even find it amusing. If you really want to know, https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=Why+saying+bitch+is+misogynistic

FYI, Marxism is a loose set of ideas. Some people interpreted in various ways and configurations, and even Marxists don't all agree with each other. I already said, some Marxists aren't feminists. Marxism != feminism. Complimentary, but not equal. Here's a salient example: during the Bolshevik revolution, women were at first encouraged to work and all household chores were outsourced to the community at large. But then the leaders (I think it was Lenin?) did a 180 on that, calling for women to return to the homes because the country 'needed' them in order to survive the invasion by Western powers. I've heard feminist Marxists complain about women's issues being treated as lower priority, and this serves as an early historical example. Left tendencies cooperate a lot, but they don't always act in perfect harmony. It would be equivocation to act like they are the same.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 08, 2014, 08:59:47 AM
Why do Men's Rights Activists call themselves that? Presumably it's because they want to have a specialized group or movement that deals with men's issues. Right? Or is it? Because that's why feminism. Or do they want to have a patriarchy? Which is it, then? Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA. It also begs the question why people form any group under a similar manner. I hope that answers your question.
Entire reason for MRA to exist is fight against feminism, because if nothing is done men will lose all rights completely.
And do not lie, because feminism is exclusively about women it is not egalitarianism.

when we discuss various issues like rape inequality etc, we must take into account all side.
like in case of rape there is man and woman and each of them can be falsely accusing each other or lying so while making laws you must treat both sides equally.
Feminists prefer to disregard male side completely assuming that if woman says so it is so, while who cares if that man is guilty or not. Primary objective is to protect women.

Exactly same problems happens with domestic violence, where woman gets priority over man.

And if laws become so biased against men, women start using legal system as weapon.
You may think that world is some kindergarden but it is war zone and we all use all we can to win. Both men and women will try to get the best what they can using all means available and if you provide advantage for women men just leave this game and stop playing.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: eternal bias on June 08, 2014, 11:27:25 AM
Quote
Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA.


I don't consider myself an MRA and really I don't consider myself an activist in any sense.  However I do find myself agreeing with them on many issues.  Mainly because it seems there is an incredible bias against men in many facets of society.  That's not to say there aren't biases against women in society either, but society is complicated so I don't see how there can't be bias on both ends.

Take this recent example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIGRRRcuvQw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIGRRRcuvQw)

A woman attacks a young man for practicing his hobby flying remote controlled aircraft, something that is entirely legal where he lives.  She says he is "spying" on people when it's a public beach where taking pictures is perfectly legal.    She calls the police then begins to beat him and choke him.  When the police arrive she quickly accuses him of "creeping on women in bikinis" and of course the police believe her.

Quote
They first listened to her story of lies (she claimed I was taking close ups of people in bikinis, and that she had asked me to stop flying before calling the police, and that I was the one that assaulted her, and and and). The police approached me very aggressively, believing her full story


Now if her story was believed he could be looking at 10-15 years in jail depending on how feminist the judge for he case was feeling.  Thankfully technology and quick thinking saved him.  He recorded her assault of him with a smartphone and she was charged instead.  However she was only given a misdemeanor while her story as a female accusing a male would have ended up with the innocent young man getting charged with a felony, something that would have ruined his future career prospects and his life in general.
source for the story.

The amazing thing is that if you read the comments for the video, not only do most people support htis woman who would have lied and sent an innocent man to prison for over 10 years on her own caprice, but most people condemn the man.  They call him a wierdo, a creep, a loser fo rnot fighting back, a liar, and idiot, all the names in the book, despite the fact he did literally nothing wrong and even the police said he was free to fly his aircraft after they left.  There is nothing the man can do in this situation to look good and nothing the woman can do to look bad regardless of context.  Women are always right and good. Men are always wrong and evil, end of story.

Source for the story here:
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/06/07/crazed-woman-attacks-man-flying-camera-drone-public-beach-connecticut/ (http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/06/07/crazed-woman-attacks-man-flying-camera-drone-public-beach-connecticut/)


Meanwhile according to feminist theory this man should STILL be going to jail regardless of evidence.  Why?  Because according to feminist theory you are NEVER allowed to doubt an alleged survivor of sexual assault or rape.  On these grounds alone the recording should be destroyed and inadmissible as evidence  According to feminists any doubt, regardless of how hesitant, of a "survivors" story is proof that you support violence against women and are in fact a supporter of violence against women.  Even using the word "alleged" is problematic.  The accused is always guilty no matter what evidence there is or isn't.

You might think this is hyperbole but it isn't.  Recently when one feminist, anarchist male wrote a piece online that can be summed up as saying, "people are innocent until proven guilty in our court system" he was universally denounced by feminists as "promoting rape culture".

You can read his article here:
http://towardfreedom.com/29-archives/activism/3455-the-politics-of-denunciation (http://towardfreedom.com/29-archives/activism/3455-the-politics-of-denunciation)

This article was so offensive to feminists that his speaking engagement at an anarchist meeting was boycotted and he was yelled at and castigated for daring to think you need proof before we haul people off to jail based on accusations and not proof.

Here's the video of that confrontation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU)

Safe to say he was silenced and the modern feminists felt this was a great victory in the battle against "rape culture" and "patriarchy" despite the fact this self styled anarchist was in fact a radical feminist himself.

It seems to me feminism has become a "blame men first ask questions later" dogma where things like criticism are considered "patriarchal" and where even killing women in videogames is now considered "rape (http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4735078/Wonderful)"
Feminism seems to have ironically, recreated the same hysterical conditions that created the Salem witch hunts, that is it has created wild goose chases against imaginary foes.  When no foes are found they just make them up in order to find someone to punish.  The irony comes from the fact these were the very tactics that were once used to oppress women.  Now instead they are being used against largely clueless men who one way or another stumble into they now very ride category of "potential rapists" and are therefore treated as such.

What is the cause of this hysteria?  I think the cause is largely the fact feminists have found no witches to burn or in this case, evil rapists to accuse.  Heather McDonald in her article here puts it best.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html)

Quote
The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years


Quote
This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.”


Quote
If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.


Quote
None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.


Quote
Campuses do everything they can to get their numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults up—adding new categories of lesser offenses, lowering the burden of proof, and devising hearing procedures that will elicit more assault charges. At Yale, it is the accuser who decides whether the accused may confront her—a sacrifice of one of the great Anglo-Saxon truth-finding procedures.


Quote
So what reality does lie behind the campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. “We’re adults,” the students shouted. “We can manage our own lives. If we want to have members of the opposite sex in our rooms at any hour of the day or night, that’s our right.” The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s box of boorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year. Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet! Do the girls try to match their insensitivity? Indisputably.

College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.”


Quote
As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.


So now witches have been magicked into existence to burn, and that is what feminism largely is now.  Burning constructed witches.

The only other aspect of MRA an undoubtedly it's most popular part among MRAs themselves is mainly overlooked by feminists.  That is child support and alimony.  Many MRAs are fathers angry that that they have been divorced largely because of "irreconcilable differences and never anything close to abuse and left to dry by a legal system designed to cater to women.  Men basically become debt slaves and are forced to give up half of their income while there is no guarantee their money is spent on their kids and not on luxury goods for their ex-wives.  Now feminists can argue against this all they want but there are enough horror stories (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QX0uZAgRa4E/TJe5yMMnRLI/AAAAAAAAETU/jVr7tBzuYI0/s1600/1eBS3.png) out there to make their complaints at least plausible.



Meanwhile a woman who sexually assaulted teen boys (http://ktla.com/2014/06/06/irvine-mom-sentenced-for-sex-assault-of-teens-at-her-fun-house/#axzz343hcwZug) was given a very light sentence of a few years, something that would get a male possibly ten times that sentence.

In the end i consider there quite enough holes in the feminist mythology that I lok skeptically on their claims to be egalitarians.  Instead it seems like they are merely another French Revolutionary-esque mob looking for someone who needs to lose their head.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 08, 2014, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Omega
Entire reason for MRA to exist is fight against feminism, because if nothing is done men will lose all rights completely.


Thanks Omega, that tells me everything I need to know about MRA. :D By your admission, MRA is a hate group whose sole purpose of existence is to eradicate another group (feminists), not to help men with their problems.

Feminism is about helping women, not about destroying another group. It even helps men, transgender, transsexual, queer, bi, lesbian, and gay people who are all affected by patriarchy. IMO, any MRA who sees the difference will understand that they actually share common ground with feminists in the quest for liberation, but only once they realize that we each have a common enemy, but that enemy is not in each other, rather it is in our hearts and minds and we can overcome it. Feminism is your scapegoat, it is not your root cause.

If you don't like the word, look past it and see what it is really all about. I wouldn't even be surprised if I was to find that you guys have never even read feminist literature (which is scattered ALL over the Internet, a search away, let me share some with you!), but rather had someone else tell you caricatures of what feminists say than reading the myriads of things they actually do say (especially the analysis)!!!

@eternal bias: That post is too long, I won't read it.

LINKS:
**read this first:
http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/ (http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/)
http://www.davkadeergirl.com/2008/03/cosmic-titty-archetype_07.html (http://www.davkadeergirl.com/2008/03/cosmic-titty-archetype_07.html)
http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/she-can-always-tell-me-to-stop-sexual-assault-and-just-trying-something-new/ (http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/she-can-always-tell-me-to-stop-sexual-assault-and-just-trying-something-new/)
**Bookmark these and read later:
http://time.com/2796068/two-sisters-raped-and-hanged-from-a-tree-in-india/ (http://time.com/2796068/two-sisters-raped-and-hanged-from-a-tree-in-india/)
http://souciant.com/2014/06/the-gender-syndrome/ (http://souciant.com/2014/06/the-gender-syndrome/)
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/ (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175850/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_%23yesallwomen_changes_the_story/ (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175850/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_%23yesallwomen_changes_the_story/)
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/26wic2/exactly_why_it_happens_to_men_too_doesnt_apply_to/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/26wic2/exactly_why_it_happens_to_men_too_doesnt_apply_to/)
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/27hlt6/gender_nonconformance_vs_feminism/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/27hlt6/gender_nonconformance_vs_feminism/)
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06/street-harassment-survey-america (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06/street-harassment-survey-america)
http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/feminism-and-not-hating-men/ (http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/feminism-and-not-hating-men/)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/05/the-pay-gap-the-chicken-and-the-egg.html (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/05/the-pay-gap-the-chicken-and-the-egg.html)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463869/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463869/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175846/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_the_new_feminist_road_map/ (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175846/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_the_new_feminist_road_map/)
http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/264nzu/the_new_feminist_road_map_feminism_is_an_endeavor/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/264nzu/the_new_feminist_road_map_feminism_is_an_endeavor/)

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 08, 2014, 04:34:39 PM
Thanks Omega, that tells me everything I need to know about MRA.


Hardly. It might tell you - stretching a point - how Omega views that movement, but he is not its spokesperson any more than am I (and I have nothing to say other than that I broadly support its aims as long as they are peaceful, truthful, and respectful) or Stefan Molyneux (who has lots).
Seeing the link war that seems to have flared up, I almost (but not quite!) regret posting my earlier reply, with which I was attempting - in a moment of heady euphoria - to draw attention to reasonable (or what seem to me to be reasonable) ground rules, and will make no further comment. In the unlikely event that anyone cares to know my personal reasons, they are summarized in two posts I made here on FDRL some time ago:
http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=707.msg8665#msg8665 (http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=707.msg8665#msg8665)
http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=705.msg8649#msg8649 (http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=705.msg8649#msg8649)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 05:49:22 PM
Eternal Bias: Thank you for that extensive post. We would all do well to spend some time with it.

Hardly. It might tell you - stretching a point - how Omega views that movement, but he is not its spokesperson any more than am I (and I have nothing to say other than that I broadly support its aims as long as they are peaceful, truthful, and respectful) or Stefan Molyneux (who has lots).

Thanks for that, PS.

What that leap did was tell ME everything I need to know: Lee Li's agenda is to devalue the MRA movement (c wat i did thar?)

Why do Men's Rights Activists call themselves that? Presumably it's because they want to have a specialized group or movement that deals with men's issues. Right? Or is it? Because that's why feminism. Or do they want to have a patriarchy? Which is it, then? Because to ask why feminism begs the question why MRA. It also begs the question why people form any group under a similar manner. I hope that answers your question.

No. It doesn't.
We have the MRA because Feminism does not address male issues (from male perspectives and concerns). We wouldn't need the MRA if Feminism didn't go overboard while seeking parity of esteem for women (as well as other reasons).

Feminism is called Feminism because it seeks to restructure the world from the feminine perspective EXCLUSIVELY. This is the truth until it is adequately answered. And invoking the Tu Quoque fallacy does not answer the question.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 08, 2014, 05:54:08 PM
Seeing the link war that seems to have flared up,

This is what happens when you abuse the term "due dilligence" and make others responsible for proving your point.

I almost (but not quite!) regret posting my earlier reply, with which I was attempting - in a moment of heady euphoria - to draw attention to reasonable (or what seem to me to be reasonable) ground rules, and will make no further comment.

Nearly every reasonable person has been effectively silenced or ignored in this thread, which is a pity because I was interested in hearing more about other points of view.  Ironic, isn't it - how we give people space to have their say and they use that freedom to limit the freedom of others.

Unfortunately, this thread makes reasonable men's legitimate issues look unreasonable.  A very low quality thread.

edit: insert word ignored

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 05:59:42 PM
Whinge, whinge, whinge. That's all I've seen you do here, Kaz, and you come to tell us about low quality content.

Can we please get QuestEon to pop in and arbitrate? Maybe we'll just stay off all subjects that any one little nosepicker might find uncomfortable. Maybe then we'll have the tepid water some of us are used to.

c wat i did thar?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 08, 2014, 06:20:17 PM
Feminism is about helping women, not about destroying another group. It even helps men, transgender, transsexual, queer, bi, lesbian, and gay people who are all affected by patriarchy. IMO, any MRA who sees the difference will understand that they actually share common ground with feminists in the quest for liberation, but only once they realize that we each have a common enemy, but that enemy is not in each other, rather it is in our hearts and minds and we can overcome it. Feminism is your scapegoat, it is not your root cause.
Dont you think it is very stupid to declare that our hearts are our enemies?
And why don't you stop using that meaningless word "partiarcy" and say what exactly you mean.

Talking about help, make up your mid what is most important help or equality:
If we have rape victim and suspect rapist we must treat them equally, helping one of the sides is injustice. when someone get more rights someone else loses them. you cant just give something out of nothing.
MRA do not fight for this mystical  "partiarcy". MRA fight for equality between men and women because now women have far more rights than men.
I guess you confuse MRA with traditionalists.

There is no common ground for everyone because we all have different interests and usually men have different interests than women.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 08, 2014, 06:27:44 PM
Whinge, whinge, whinge. That's all I've seen you do here, Kaz, and you come to tell us about low quality content.

Can we please get QuestEon to pop in and arbitrate? Maybe we'll just stay off all subjects that any one little nosepicker might find uncomfortable. Maybe then we'll have the tepid water some of us are used to.

c wat i did thar?

If you want to complain about my post or any other post, all you have to do is hit the "report to moderator" link at the bottom right of the post.

If you find this forum too tepid, instead of complaining about it, you could always find another more to your approval.  There is a whole internet out there, you know.

 



Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on June 08, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
I thought it might be interesting to take the text from the articles that have been posted on the past two pages, and turn them into word clouds. I know these articles are just what a handful of people chose to share, and aren't necessarily indicative of the general tone of the two movements, but it's still interesting to compare.

MRA word cloud:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/24c83nb.png)

Feminism word cloud:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/168x3rn.jpg)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 08, 2014, 06:59:44 PM
That's beautiful Argent, thanks - I had no idea such things existed. I suppose they could be merged into a single combined "angry people" word cloud...
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 08, 2014, 07:08:51 PM
That's beautiful Argent, thanks - I had no idea such things existed. I suppose they could be merged into a single combined "angry people" word cloud...

...lol

That was a very creative thing to do, thanks Argent.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on June 08, 2014, 07:13:05 PM
That's beautiful Argent, thanks - I had no idea such things existed. I suppose they could be merged into a single combined "angry people" word cloud...

Me neither until just now! I used wordle.net (http://wordle.net)

Combo word cloud:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/302yuxh.png)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 08, 2014, 07:21:53 PM
Quote
No. It doesn't.
We have the MRA because Feminism does not address male issues (from male perspectives and concerns). We wouldn't need the MRA if Feminism didn't go overboard while seeking parity of esteem for women (as well as other reasons).

Feminism is called Feminism because it seeks to restructure the world from the feminine perspective EXCLUSIVELY. This is the truth until it is adequately answered. And invoking the Tu Quoque fallacy does not answer the question.


I figured it should answer the question if we both have the same intentions. If we don't have the same intentions, that's important. Omega seems to think MRA is about dismantling women's cultural, economic, and legal victories for equality that have been achieved thus far (I'm spelling out what feminism is here so you see what I see). Which is a little...reactionary. So how about you? Do you agree with it?

Another way of asking. Do you as well believe that feminism is the enemy of the MRA movement?

I'm going to continue focusing on Zetaman's posts because I can appreciate he's not making wildly inaccurate interpretations of what I wrote. No offense to Omega, but I obviously didn't say 'our hearts' are the enemy (perhaps this is a language barrier).

Yes to feminism because the world for the past 5,000 years hasn't addressed women's oppression. Don't you agree that it's been a man's world for most of human history? Spousal rape wasn't even a thing until the early 90s. Birth control used to be illegal. Abortion and birth control are lobbied against by conservatives today still. The rest of the world outside of "developed nations" still operate under primitve sexist regimes, and the developed world still isn't quite done yet.

To address your other statements here: Are you saying that seeking equal status is bad when it goes beyond a certain point - that is, that there can be too much equal status? Secondly, what is meant by the "feminine persective", if gender is a social construct made to divide us into subordinate and dominant classes? Do you believe that there is an inherent and especially socially significant difference between genders? Why doesn't feminism adequately answer men's issues?

When there are men in the movement who have personally benefited and when feminists focus on how gender roles affect men as an important component of stopping the oppression...

Have you read this? http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/ (http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 08:29:10 PM
Sorry Lee Li, I have this all-body convulsion that prevents me from reading any Feminist material. I liken this feeling to what people feel when I try to get them to read material arguing for white pride. I understand how maybe the images of gas chambers and marching Nazis can't be separated from white pride, because I can't seem to separate #killallmen and claims like "all men are rapists" from any other Feminist material. I simply won't read it.

Who told you that gender is a social construct? Gender dymorphism and the actions of estrogen and testosterone on the brain during and after gestation are solid facts of life. The claim that this has no effect on how one sees themselves and the world and what existential impulses one feels is a Positive Claim that requires evidence. That evidence does not exist. We also have Evolutionary Psychology which tells us that over time either gender has evolved and honed particular instincts and drives.
We all see the world a little differently - what's so difficult to understand that men will experience themselves and their lives differently? What's so difficult to understand that women could not possibly conceive of how a man even functions in his inner world?

No, I do not believe we've been living in a "man's world" for 5,000 years. What exactly makes you think that?
I believe the Abrahamic religious models brought with them a "man's world", but even then men were not on top because God and all his special club members were on top.
Before the plague of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam swept through our world we had a variety of social systems. Both men and woman could be masters and slaves. As an example, under Brehon Law (the Law of my Irish Ancestors) a woman was EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. Divorce was possible under this system, but was taken away from us with the formation of The Republic of Ireland which modeled it's legal system off of the British legal system, which was based on the Bible. It was only in 1996 that we regained the ability to initiate divorce.

As for the reference to marital rape, that's a subject that can be discussed and isn't completely black and white.
While it wasn't against the law for a husband to have sex with his wife regardless of her consent, it was perfectly lawful for that same woman to brutally assault her husband. The dynamics of marriage are complex. Beginning with the assumption that marriage was originally stacked in favour of the man will prevent one from seeing those complexities.

I do not believe that rights for women should be dismantled. Nor do I believe that Omega was saying that. Inasmuch as you claim he wildly misinterprets your posts, you're misinterpreting him and I'd like you to go back and read carefully over what he said.

I do not believe that one can have too much equality. That doesn't even make sense linguistically. Our concerns lie with the empowerment that women have been granted in several realms of society in order to make them equal, which has the fallout of harming men.
Please read the above 3 times, as I and others have said this in multiple ways and it just doesn't seem to be getting through.

Feminism IS the enemy of the MRA for the reasons that I pointed out that Feminism is exclusively for the benefit of women and comes with the assumption (which you've shared over and over in this thread) that we live in a Patriarchal society.

The non-existence of a Patriarchy has Feminists claiming that "Patriarchy oppresses men too" in order to escape having to let go of the claim. Surely by effect we do not live in a Patriarchy if men are oppressed by it.
Give a woman the same amount of power that a man has under your supposed Patriarchy, and she will stand equal chances of oppressing people of both genders. To claim that this could be any different would be to say that women have some kind of moral superiority which men do not.

Are you starting to see how the ideology of Feminism is destructive and contrary to equality? Or would you like to go on feigning ignorance of this blatant truth?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 08, 2014, 08:31:57 PM
I'm hoping these might be agreeable:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/not-a-feminist-move-on-men-women (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/not-a-feminist-move-on-men-women)
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vn3uy/what_if_we_all_called_ourselves_feminists_d/ceu6jui (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1vn3uy/what_if_we_all_called_ourselves_feminists_d/ceu6jui)

All of that and what I said before is just to say: feminism and men's rights can share a common ground if their shared goal is equality for the genders. The fight for gender equality is not won until we have equality for each gender. Any imbalance is a failure. In which case, MRA and feminism would be closer allies than Marxism.

I was writing this before your above post, so I'll just post this and read what you wrote, then respond.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 08:48:18 PM
What has that Guardian article got to offer the conversation? And actually, what did those articles for Eternal Bias have to offer the discussion?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 08, 2014, 08:54:44 PM
The articles were not for eternal bias, but for everyone.

Alright, well I'm not going to try to convince you that gender and sex are different, or that it has been a man's world, but I can really appreciate that you agree that one cannot have too much equality (I also was going to say that it is linguistically/logically absurd).

I've never encountered a murderous feminist. But that would be just shitty. Misandry should not masquerade as feminism, but I acknowledge it as a theoretical possibility because people can have messed up ideas about justice. Some people think that means revenge. But a more pragmatic view would be restorative justice. It shouldn't mean 'getting back at men in equal measure' for their dominance. That would be flipping the dynamics, not bringing about equality.

Feminism has many strains; it's not like there is one party line. Some strains of feminism are simply horrible! I could tell you about one trend that is anti-transsexual...well, you get the idea.

I'm just glad to see an egalitarian MRA. I have some important disagreement with your analysis, but the goal is the same so that's good. Whatever one's particular focus, the world needs people with egalitarian mindsets.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 09:05:58 PM
Agreed.
But I will maintain my position that you're a walking contradiction as Feminism presupposes the dominance of men.

And I'd also like to point out that misandry masquerading as Feminism is not just theoretical, it's very very real and it's a lot more popular than you'd first imagine.

Your comment "I'm just glad to see an egalitarian MRA" says to me that you assume the movement as a whole and almost all the men and women in it are not "egalitarian". Is that an insult or are you really just that ignorant of the movement? Don't answer that, it shouldn't matter.

Please take the time, when you have it, to absorb the thoughts of educated and experienced people (e.g. Paul Elam, Dr. Warren Farrell, & Tara Palmatier) from the MRA perspective on gender parity.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on June 08, 2014, 09:20:23 PM
About the equality/parity stuff, I wonder if MRA thinks about this:

In a theoretical world where we have done everything possible to give women every opportunity men have, men won't have every opportunity women have. Because if a woman wants a kid, she just needs to find some sperm. If a man wants a kid, there is a much more involved process to go through, involving find a mate and either staying with her, or fighting it out in court. (I'm generalizing--there are of course other, more difficult options.)

I could see this leading to an unresolvable resentment, and I don't know what to do about it. (Not that single-parent families are all that great, due to the time-consuming nature of parenting.)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 08, 2014, 09:27:46 PM
Please take the time, when you have it, to absorb the thoughts of educated and experienced people (e.g. Paul Elam, Dr. Warren Farrell, & Tara Palmatier) from the MRA perspective on gender parity.

You assume that we have never heard of these people.  I have not studied Dr. Farrell's work, am familiar with Paul Elam and have read Dr. Tara Palmatier extensively.  In fact I am an advocate in a similar area that Dr. Palmatier works in.

You really do not do your cause justice by the way you have behaved in this thread, sir.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: eternal bias on June 08, 2014, 09:44:31 PM

@eternal bias: That post is too long, I won't read it.

LINKS:
**read this first:
[url]http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/[/url] ([url]http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/[/url])
[url]http://www.davkadeergirl.com/2008/03/cosmic-titty-archetype_07.html[/url] ([url]http://www.davkadeergirl.com/2008/03/cosmic-titty-archetype_07.html[/url])
[url]http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/she-can-always-tell-me-to-stop-sexual-assault-and-just-trying-something-new/[/url] ([url]http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/she-can-always-tell-me-to-stop-sexual-assault-and-just-trying-something-new/[/url])
**Bookmark these and read later:
[url]http://time.com/2796068/two-sisters-raped-and-hanged-from-a-tree-in-india/[/url] ([url]http://time.com/2796068/two-sisters-raped-and-hanged-from-a-tree-in-india/[/url])
[url]http://souciant.com/2014/06/the-gender-syndrome/[/url] ([url]http://souciant.com/2014/06/the-gender-syndrome/[/url])
[url]http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/[/url] ([url]http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/[/url])
[url]http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175850/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_%23yesallwomen_changes_the_story/[/url] ([url]http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175850/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_%23yesallwomen_changes_the_story/[/url])
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/26wic2/exactly_why_it_happens_to_men_too_doesnt_apply_to/[/url] ([url]http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/26wic2/exactly_why_it_happens_to_men_too_doesnt_apply_to/[/url])
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/27hlt6/gender_nonconformance_vs_feminism/[/url] ([url]http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/27hlt6/gender_nonconformance_vs_feminism/[/url])
[url]http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06/street-harassment-survey-america[/url] ([url]http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06/street-harassment-survey-america[/url])
[url]http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/feminism-and-not-hating-men/[/url] ([url]http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/feminism-and-not-hating-men/[/url])
[url]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/05/the-pay-gap-the-chicken-and-the-egg.html[/url] ([url]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/05/the-pay-gap-the-chicken-and-the-egg.html[/url])
[url]http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463869/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20[/url] ([url]http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463869/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20[/url])
[url]http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175846/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_the_new_feminist_road_map/[/url] ([url]http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175846/tomgram%3A_rebecca_solnit%2C_the_new_feminist_road_map/[/url])
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/264nzu/the_new_feminist_road_map_feminism_is_an_endeavor/[/url] ([url]http://www.reddit.com/r/feminisms/comments/264nzu/the_new_feminist_road_map_feminism_is_an_endeavor/[/url])


I apologize if citing my sources has offended you in any way.  They were really only there so everyone knew I wasn't making stuff up.  I didn't actually expect everyone to read the citations thoroughly however like most papers they are just there as a reference for the convenience of a curios reader who wanted to verify what I was saying.  Anything I felt was important I summarized and quoted in my post, again for the convenience of the reader.

On the other hand it seems you've just posted a bunch of random links without attempting to summarize them or offer any commentary at all.  While I'm sure they all have a lot to say, without some running commentary or quotations I have no idea where to start. 

As for your concern about the length of my post, I suppose I can sum up my views in a sentence so it is easy to digest:

Feminism has transformed from a fairly reasonable movement into a witch hunt, and MRAs are only alleged witches trying to avoid being burned at the metaphorical stake.

If you want to know 'why' I believe this I suppose I'll have to point you back to my original post.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 09:46:43 PM
You can tell me that this is marginal. Just a few freaks out there. First of all, I wouldn't believe you. Regardless of whether it's true or not, we wouldn't accept this kind of talk about women or black people (as demonstrated in the last image). Freedom of speech seems to apply a whole lot more to women than... I was going to say anyone else, but everyone else just happens to be male.

(http://maennerstreik.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/killallmen_twitter.jpg?w=625)
(http://antimisandry.com/attachments/mra-youtubers/3641d1395959103-feminists-want-killallmen-10151184_742489549114828_1561645782_n.jpg)
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/d0/c4/d0c47dbef284f99b60d4b8dbe41e6547.JPG?itok=4eWx_6Fz)
(http://conservativeread.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/killallmen_small.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/hRfCvcy.jpg)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
About the equality/parity stuff, I wonder if MRA thinks about this:

In a theoretical world where we have done everything possible to give women every opportunity men have, men won't have every opportunity women have. Because if a woman wants a kid, she just needs to find some sperm. If a man wants a kid, there is a much more involved process to go through, involving find a mate and either staying with her, or fighting it out in court. (I'm generalizing--there are of course other, more difficult options.)

I could see this leading to an unresolvable resentment, and I don't know what to do about it. (Not that single-parent families are all that great, due to the time-consuming nature of parenting.)

These are the questions that the MRA and MGTOW movements deliberate over collectively and personally every day.

You assume that we have never heard of these people.

Who's this "we"? I don't ever remember talking to you. The narcissism in that!

Why are you being such a shit head?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 08, 2014, 10:10:05 PM
You assume that we have never heard of these people.

Who's this "we"? I don't ever remember talking to you. The narcissism in that!

Why are you being such a shit head?

This thread is an open thread for anyone to participate in and you do not own this forum.  Your memory is inaccurate and you are conflating your right to speak your mind with verbal abuse. 

Your post says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 08, 2014, 10:34:27 PM
Nope. I'm pretty certain you took a statement directed to another individual and assumed it was directed to you. You did this simply to pick a fight.

(http://i.imgur.com/iBl3PUP.png)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on June 08, 2014, 11:47:09 PM
These are the questions that the MRA and MGTOW movements deliberate over collectively and personally every day.

On the other hand, guy hormones typically provide easier capacity for strength and athletic endurance. These are hugely valuable personal assets that can't even be sued for. I'm constantly awed by how easy athletic performance comes to my guy friends--I have to really work for it. It doesn't make me hate guys though; we have different strengths and weaknesses, and neither sex's physicality stole anything from the other. (Unless you believe the biblical claim that Eve took one of Adam's ribs! Also, estrogen in the water supply--totally awful though apparently not primarily due to the pill (http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/august-2011).)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 09, 2014, 12:06:33 AM
Eternal Bias, I'm not offended, I was just saying that's too much info for me to absorb here, so I won't respond. It would also be way too much to comment on. That is all.

The links were not directed at you: I wanted to share them in general and as part of the debate to establish what feminists actually say and write about, as part of my ongoing debate with Zetaman. I felt the need to paste actual links because I was constantly getting strawmanned. I put them at the bottom because it made formatting sense.

Also it would be too much work to comment on it all because I'm typing on my phone. Composing posts is horrible. And I had to swipe so many times to scroll down that it was driving me batty. Not your fault. Sorry if you felt singled out. Again, I wasn't making you personally read all those links: they were just available.

Just clarifying :)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 09, 2014, 12:19:17 AM
Zetaman, just as there are ignorant assholes ruining the egalitarianism of feminism, wouldn't you also agree that MRA groups have their own as well? What use is it when no one is able to police the definition of feminism or men's-rights-activism, so anyone can call themselves that? What would be the solution?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 09, 2014, 07:52:57 AM
Zetaman, just as there are ignorant assholes ruining the egalitarianism of feminism, wouldn't you also agree that MRA groups have their own as well? What use is it when no one is able to police the definition of feminism or men's-rights-activism, so anyone can call themselves that? What would be the solution?

Again You are compoletely out of topic.
We do not discuss MRA here. and it is entirely possible that MRA has their own assholes, but Entire existence of MRA is justified as counterbalance to feminism.
Ideally there should be no MRA or feminism, because if you are about equality your movement title cannot be gender specific.

Your claims that feminism is about egalitarianism is just exactly ridiculous as saying that white supremacists are interested in equality of all races.

If you make group specific title you immediately declare that you will pursue interests of that specific group against interests of everyone else.

And you still did not answered question why do you call yourself feminist if you are not fighting for women rights but for rights of everyone?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 09, 2014, 08:43:55 AM
Lee Li: Find me these assholes in the MRA, because I get the feeling like you're trying to put us down a few pegs to save face.

The MRA has considerably less bigots and sexists in it than Feminism. How can I say that? I can say that because every woman and her dog will identify as a Femenist, and a great deal of women harbour hostility towards men.
Men, on the other-hand, love women. That's what breaks our hearts. Even when we turn MGTOW, we gather together on open platforms like Youtube and sob at the collective nastiness that oozes out of women these days.

Please address what Omega is contributing to this thread or I cannot take you seriously anymore.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 09, 2014, 09:15:06 AM
These are the questions that the MRA and MGTOW movements deliberate over collectively and personally every day.

On the other hand, guy hormones typically provide easier capacity for strength and athletic endurance. These are hugely valuable personal assets that can't even be sued for. I'm constantly awed by how easy athletic performance comes to my guy friends--I have to really work for it. It doesn't make me hate guys though; we have different strengths and weaknesses, and neither sex's physicality stole anything from the other. (Unless you believe the biblical claim that Eve took one of Adam's ribs! Also, estrogen in the water supply--totally awful though apparently not primarily due to the pill ([url]http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/august-2011[/url]).)


Things like this is why a lot of people within the MRA answers Feminism's cry for equality with "No! Parity of Esteem! Co-Operation!". By no stretch are men and women the exact same + social constructs. No matter how much I try, I cannot see a woman hanging off the back of a garbage truck, sneaking through a jungle like Rambo (with exceptions), or guiding a steel girder suspended by a crane while balancing 100 storeys above the ground. Just like I'm sure you couldn't imagine me pulling off what you can, specific to your gender. I know I wouldn't be able to carry a child in my gut for 9 months without forgetting it's there and seriously injuring it.
Equality is out of the question, traditionalism (a la Abrahamic values) is out of the question - we need to come to a new arrangement as we exist in a level of civilization never seen by our species before.

In my marriage we are both very happy (except for a few compatibility issues). We just exist together. It helps that we aren't able to have children.
As it stands now, she's unemployed; I'm self-employed; we're building a business and do radio shows together. She cooks, I wash dishes and clean as I am the most neurotic when it comes to cleanliness. It is up to her to clean more intensive things like windowsils. I take out the "garbage" and wheel the bins out to be collected. I carry all the weight while shopping, and she carries some on the journey home. We both go to our allotment and tend to our fruit, veg, and herbs. She has time to do what she likes best: read and research subjects that interest her. I have time for what I like best: building websites, researching new artists/music for our show, and the odd computer game and ranting on forums.
We adopted a double-barrel Surname. I don't see why she aught to take my name, and I love both mine and hers, as does she. It's important we share a Surname as, if war broke out or one of us was hospitalised or whathaveyou, then there wouldn't be any confusion Re: who belongs to who.

Sadly this paradise was destroyed by a family emergency that sent her back to the States :(

But this is how we deal with our differences, and neither of us feel "oppressed". Right now she's oppressed because she's got a 3rd level education in New York with no prospects. She's NOTHING to this world. She's as useless as a common bum where she is. But she experienced true value while living with me.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 09, 2014, 02:24:04 PM
I couldn't give a toss about your "Arthur" or having credibility in some kind of cultish clique.
What is this, 1992?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 09, 2014, 04:59:45 PM
Zetaman, I think scrampi was joking
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 09, 2014, 05:02:36 PM
If I wanted to save face, I would have tried harder than that. I want to establish a common ground, so we can then talk about how to achieve our common goal. If we want the same outcome, then there is no sense in shit talking. I think it would in fact be respectable and intellectually honest to admit the faults in our movements so we can fix them. No movement or group of people is without its faults or people afflicted by delusions (or, another way of putting it: destructive memes). If you only point out the "feminists" who are actually misandrists (by definition!) while saying MRA is pure as a lamb and free from any misogynists, then that is splitting, and splitting leads to unclear, irrational, inaccurate thinking. I would like us to rise above tribalism, because there is far more at stake than who gets to look better, and those things are the reason I'm sure each person joined these movements.

Quote from: Zetaman
I can say that because every woman and her dog will identify as a Feminist, and a great deal of women harbour hostility towards men. Men, on the other-hand, love women.​

Actually, men as a class of people don't simply "love women". Really, it can and does go both ways. Men and women have their resentments, and they have their reasons. It would be interesting to talk about why, and people do analyze that. But that is not what you are doing by bringing this up (it would be tangential anyway). It makes no sense to use people's emotional states to discredit and credit them.

What those people do with their feelings is what counts. For example, it is obviously f*cked up to tweet #killallmen. But to use a very similar Twitter event, it is a constructive thing to tweet #YesAllWomen in response to a misogyny-fueled killing-spree, to open a dialogue about the fear, harassment, and abuse women experience.

I need to emphasize that feminism is a movement that is, by definition, egalitarian. Feminism != misandry. People waving the banner of feminism while rallying for misandry are wrong. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, but history sets a precedent for what feminism (or any other politics) is. Anyone who is ignorant or misinformed of what it is, is ignorant of the history.

I have a follow-up post coming, where I will address Omega's points (and possibly others, depending on time and energy).
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 09, 2014, 05:59:17 PM
Quote from: Omega
Ideally there should be no MRA or feminism, because if you are about equality your movement title cannot be gender specific.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any of these civil rights movements, because people would simply treat others fairly. We do not live in such a world.

Actually, the movement can be gender specific. And it should. And there should be special interest groups (in the general meaning of the phrase) because an overarching group by the name 'egalitarianism' is too broad to address every issue in detail.


Quote from: Omega
Your claims that feminism is about egalitarianism is just exactly ridiculous as saying that white supremacists are interested in equality of all races.

White supremacists are not interested in equality. Feminists are. Got it?


Quote
If you make group specific title you immediately declare that you will pursue interests of that specific group against interests of everyone else.

It means that you will pursue interests of that specific group, but no more than that, not what you are implying. It does not mean that the group seeks world domination or to oppress. It all depends on the specific goals of that group.

I think you guys should stop saying you object to 'feminism' and say instead that you object to misandry. I think it is right to denounce misandry, so do it, and in doing that it will be a win for men's and women's political rights, culture, health, and so on. We will all be closer to equality.

We keep going in circles though because we just don't agree on the definition of feminism.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: QuestEon on June 09, 2014, 06:25:36 PM
We keep going in circles though because we just don't agree on the definition of feminism.

This.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 09, 2014, 07:14:21 PM
Quote
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any of these civil rights movements, because people would simply treat others fairly. We do not live in such a world.
gender specific interest group is not same as civil rights movement.
and that fair treatment is quite different from your and my perspective.

Quote
Actually, the movement can be gender specific. And it should. And there should be special interest groups (in the general meaning of the phrase) because an overarching group by the name 'egalitarianism' is too broad to address every issue in detail.

Nobody denies you rights to defend your interests, however why do you make claims that feminism is about rights of everyone when it is specifically about rights of women and you admit it?
In that case men need their own group to protect their rights against feminism.


Quote
White supremacists are not interested in equality. Feminists are. Got it?
sorry, you cannot be interested in equality, if you only care about rights of certain group, by definition. It is like attempt to draw square with 3 angles.

Quote
It means that you will pursue interests of that specific group, but no more than that, not what you are implying. It does not mean that the group seeks world domination or to oppress. It all depends on the specific goals of that group.
I am not implying anything besides fact that feminist are about interests of women.
whether it seeks word domination or not, depends on what are those interests and they can change over time. Also it depends on how do you define "world domination".

I Want to clarify to what equality you actually refer:
there are 2 equalities: equal opportunities for everyone or equal living quality for everyone.
So which one you are advocating?
I guess you are one who confuse feminism with socialism, because if you are fighting for equal living quality for everyone  that is socialism.
Socialism may be nice, but do not forget that it failed everywhere so far.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 09, 2014, 09:00:44 PM
Equal opportunities for everyone is what I am speaking about. We don't need to talk about socialism, not every feminist is a socialist.

But first thing's first -- until we can agree on the definition of feminism, we will get nowhere. And then if each party agrees that equality is the shared goal, then we can debate what it means to have equality. I don't want to start talking about it and then have one of you fall back to the comparison of feminism to terrorism or whatever.

Quote
sorry, you cannot be interested in equality, if you only care about rights of certain group, by definition.
Everyone has their pet theories, some have multiple. They are not mutually exclusive.

Quote
In that case men need their own group to protect their rights against feminism misandry.
Corrected for you.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 09, 2014, 09:54:48 PM
To everyone except Lee Li and Omega: Please allow space for us to have this dialogue and don't get cagey because this process is an inconvenience of some indefinable dimension. We're not taking up physical space, and this is a NEW ISSUE that needs to be massaged out.

Cheers


Lee Li:
I've been pondering over your attachment to the word "Feminist", and while reading through the comments on a Youtube video about a radical feminist who was making a ridiculous argument that all sex is RAPE, I came across this brilliant comment that deserves some digesting:
Quote
The most worrying thing about feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Radical Wind et al is not the extreme feminists themselves as bad as they are but the fact that almost all other feminists keep quiet about their ugly sisters. There seems to be an Honour among thieves" code operating. More moderate feminists will be busy apologising for them with "not all feminists are like that" instead of countering those feminists who are like that

by Coweatsman (https://www.youtube.com/user/coweatsman)

Even if you aren't in one of the many distasteful and GENOCIDAL sub-categories of Feminism, you are complicit in them for not making any meaningful attempts to hold your fellow Feminists accountable. The MRA polices itself constantly despite it only being a few years old - so why can't Feminism?
If you aren't up to the task, please abandon this terminology completely. Not only for my sake and (in my opinion) the world's sake, but for your own as well. Feminism is very quickly becoming a dirty word outside of the walls of the outposts of intellectual supremacy (AKA College Campuses) where all the real people live.
Exemplified by the following Youtube comment, made in reply to the excellent comment above:

Quote
Well Feminism is more importantly something that the individual woman does for herself these days, by standing up for her own respect when disrespected.  Feminism itself may have come into being in order to fright cultural issues that were pervasive, but it was always a gender bias focused movement.  I don't have a problem with women working together on fighting misogyny against women, but I would prefer to see a more individual responsibility focused movement.  One that focuses on woman standing up for themselves in individual instances today, rather than a movement doing so for them through hard line anti male narratives.  One that  realistic highlights the current day problems facing young boys and men along side of their main focus of championing respect and rights for women. 

That would be the movement no one would bother fighting with and it would be hip with the times and how they have indeed changed quite a lot from the old days.  Either Feminism needs to do what I just said or even the "moderates" are just going to be seen more and more as members of a movement focused only on women and not on being a helpful cooperator with others in society to address other current issues.  The truth is that most people are coming to feel Feminism had it's purpose and now is past it's time of relevance enough to remain around.  Most people just want women to work and fight for respect and whatever else that their is left to achieve in for women in the improved society that we now have today, rather than run heavy footed movement.  Women are Female and so a woman standing up for herself is "Feminism" to me, not some monolithic organization.

by CyberSpaceman81 (http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/101141091501082758224)

The Youtube video in question is VERY funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMRd16Izko (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMRd16Izko)

This is Karen Straughan's answer to the claim that "Not All Feminists Are Like That":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 10, 2014, 02:54:27 AM
Quote
Even if you aren't in one of the many distasteful and GENOCIDAL sub-categories of Feminism, you are complicit in them for not making any meaningful attempts to hold your fellow Feminists accountable.

I think they should be called out but I don't know anyone who is so delusional. If I come across someone who is saying f*cked up stuff, I will call them on it, and also anybody who know but didn't say. But just realize that I don't spend much of my time on activism, in any meaningful sense, because my time is sadly consumed almost entirely by trying to make a livable income. Of course I would love to spend more time on this and other things. But the reality is I just do my very small part. Anyway...

Obviously "all sex is rape" is a disassociation from reality, and I think one might be able to make the case that it's a response to improperly processed trauma. But that's just my musing.

I don't comprehend your insistence that I drop the word feminism. I never asked you to drop your label. Look, there you go again, with the splitting and tribalism. Your movement is all good; my movement is all bad. Would you drop your label if there were actual sexists or misogynists on your team? No, you would correct them: therefore, the proportional action is to correct.

Feminism was a dirty word before the MRM even existed, and that's always the case for those who don't know what it is. Let me give you an analogy. In the USA, George Bush talked all about democracy and freedom, but I'm pretty sure he didn't act in line with that because he's a freaking war criminal. That doesn't necessarily make those things bad, because of his use and manipulation of them.

I'd like to get into more complex discussion about the false rape allegations, analysis of gender, rape in the law books, and other things. But, I'm still getting the sense that this is a poo-flinging contest. It was fun, but I'm getting tired of being on the defensive, and not sure how long it will be before I stop posting.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 10, 2014, 07:57:54 AM
Equal opportunities for everyone is what I am speaking about. We don't need to talk about socialism, not every feminist is a socialist.
According to what you said earlier i doubt if it is true.
equal opportunities means that everyone gets same treatment under the law what is definitely not goal of feminism.

Quote
But first thing's first -- until we can agree on the definition of feminism, we will get nowhere. And then if each party agrees that equality is the shared goal, then we can debate what it means to have equality. I don't want to start talking about it and then have one of you fall back to the comparison of feminism to terrorism or whatever.

I think we all know its definition: it is womnen's rights movement which is fighting for more rights for women.
If you disagree you are free to tell what you think and we will check how many people agree to your definition
terrorism and misandry and everything else are just methods used to  achieve this goal.

Quote
Everyone has their pet theories, some have multiple. They are not mutually exclusive.
sorry this is not about per theory, it is just logic, and you admitted it yourself that it is about women issues. It does not matter if it is mutually excursive or not the fact is that feminism does not care about anything else.


Quote
Corrected for you.
do not correct me when I already described what I mean.
It has nothing to do with misandry it is about prioritizing women over everything else.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 10, 2014, 10:42:29 AM
Lee Li:
Surely you can spare us 20 minutes to digest Karen Straughan's demonstration that indeed "all Feminists are like that". There's a certain set of consensus beliefs that are institutionalized in higher learning and lobby groups - please call out these groups in defense of Egalitarianism or drop the label Feminism.

If you don't have the time to do this, then you don't have the time to call yourself a Feminist either.

I'll drop my MRA title and ally myself with female interests (like the second quoted Youtube comment calls for) when people like you begin to dismantle these State-funded special interest and lobby groups... you know... the ones you continually fail to learn about.
But you won't, because these groups are based on Patriarchy Theory - and why would you want to do that?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 11, 2014, 12:18:03 AM
Yes, Zetaman. It is important for feminists who see misandry to call out their comrade's hypocrisy. Feminists would be doing no favors to themselves by being motivated to take revenge, especially when that results in misandry and sexism.

I propose a solution insofar as the lobbyists go: take money out of politics. Of course, that's just my idea.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 11, 2014, 12:55:28 AM
Omega,

Being called “Feminism” and representing primarily women does not make Feminism inherently a movement of “supremacy“. Movements which are specific to certain demographics are not innately supremacy movements. Feminism is a solution for women. The Men’s Rights movement is a solution for men. LGBT movement helps queer people. Civil rights groups for blacks operate to help blacks, and so on.

It would be nice if everyone got together and called themselves egalitarian or humanist, but such an alliance does not allow people to specialize. We do see certain alliances, often in the political left wing, for these groups. As long as they have similar aims, then the specialized groups coexist as branches under a larger whole. I think that is natural. And the groups can then get the added benefit of drawing from each other's momentum. It is also not uncommon for a person to be a combination of things, like feminist + antiracist + queer rights and whatever else they may want.

Case in point, it took me only a quick search to find that there are people who are both MRA and feminist. (http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-An-Mra/2219808) And this person does too. (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14obxl/im_both_a_feminist_and_a_mra/) And while there are people who disagree with that, if what both sides want is to be treated to about the same standards and have the same opportunities and responsibilities in law, culture, and the economy, then logically, their aims are truly aligned under the larger battle against gender discrimination. As long as neither side wishes to make the other side 2nd class citizens, this is applicable.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 11, 2014, 08:34:18 AM
I think logic is inconceivable for you:
IT has nothing to do with supremacy. It is simple logic that if feminism is about women issues it is not about equality by definition.
If you are fighting for equality you cannot specialize on any group because this is against logic.

It is not about help either because it is not some charity organization which provides help for women in need feminism is fighting for more rights.


I think we all agree that feminism was justified i times when women were really denied lots of rights comparing to men and they fought and won.
Now, women have all rights that men have and much more.  Gender discrimination is inverted and men are being discriminated against women so MRA organization is doing same as feminism did one age ago.  Just like we had patriarchy now we have "feninarchy" and men have to fight against it for their rights.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on June 11, 2014, 10:31:44 AM
I haven't read the whole thread but I just wanted to quickly put in my $0.02, so sorry if I'm missing points made.  I think the crazy feminists who want to get rid of men or think all penis vagina sex is rape or want to take away the rights of men are either idiots and lesbians and/or probably damaged from abuse or something.  I don't know how anyone could be like that.  And it makes me sick that some women lie about rape because they are screwing over all real rape victims by doing that and they should be punished.

However, if you think we are treated equally now, you have never been a woman in physics.  One of my colleagues who is only a few years older than me was told by a physics professor at Stanford when she started grad school that she didn't belong there because she is a woman.  She was also told by the chair of her department when she was a tenure track faculty at a small college that she'd better not get pregnant or she would never get tenure.  No man would be told not to have children if he wanted to get tenure.  Another prof at my grad institution discriminated against women in his group in many ways, but the most clear way was that he would cut off the funding of the female grad students during the time when they were writing their theses whereas he never did that to any of the men.  (Please don't focus on the fact that many on here wouldn't think they should have $ in any case because I'm focussed on the equality issue not the fact that grant money is stolen from others in the first place.)  These women are all successful postdocs or research scientists now so I know it wasn't because they weren't good grad students.  Luckily I left the group before that because of his other terrible behavior so I didn't get that "special" treatment.

One thing that makes equality hard is that we will never be equal because women give birth, breast feed, and have monthly cycles.  If we want to continue the human race AND reach equality, those things need to not be issues that cause our careers to be destroyed.  Or do we just want the ambition-less women to be the only ones procreating?  That doesn't sound like a good idea for us in the long term, I'm just saying.  Just watch the movie Idiocracy and you will get my drift.

I actually feel sorry for men in a lot of ways because the way they are socialized makes it harder for them to be emotionally open and that leads to less connected relationships, which to me are the whole darn reason life is worth living.  I know this is a generalization but I think it's part of why this FDR BS is so appealing to some young men.  Cutting yourself off from the people who will love me unconditionally seems like the most stupid thing ever, though of course if I had been abused I would feel differently.  That's what makes me the most sad about my boyfriend's transition; he is cutting himself off from the love in the world, which is a huge part of what makes us human.  For goodness sakes it is hypothesized that is why we have the big brains that allow these FDR cultists to think about all these philosophical ideas.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/human_brain_size_social_groups_led_to_the_evolution_of_large_brains.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/human_brain_size_social_groups_led_to_the_evolution_of_large_brains.html)

Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?  Too many people have too much hurt inside and lash out at each other instead of dealing with what is going on inside.  I think that is true of some feminists and some MRA dudes.  Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 11, 2014, 11:14:28 AM
Quote
One thing that makes equality hard is that we will never be equal because women give birth, breast feed, and have monthly cycles.

Your concept of equality is wrong itself.  It is exactly form of discrimination if you provide some benefits for people with monthly cycle. It will be same as discriminating because of certain skin color. What you say is basically I have vagina so I deserve special treatment.


Quote
Or do we just want the ambition-less women to be the only ones procreating?
this is exactly same for men.
only ambition less people procreate regardless of gender.
It is just impossible for anyone with decent ambitions to even want kids, because they put end to everything.

some men can marry ambition-less woman and dump all child bearing on her alone.
or alternatively ambitions woman can marry ambition-less man and dump her children on him.
But because of discriminatory laws that demand benefits for women those ambitious women are avoided and this will not change ever.

If I employ someone I will not bother with people who are going to cause my problems. If I employ you I expect you o work not take care of your children or anything else.
So this is not discrimination this is your personal choice to raise kids instead of seeking carrier.

Quote
Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?
everyone is different, however generally we asume some traits to be feminine and some masculine. It does not mean that all men must be masculine and all women feminine, however it is not really possible to coexist 2 of same type in one family because if 2 feminine people will make family it will be incapable to solve problems and 2 masculine people will rip each other throats. same is valid for gays and lesbians, 2 masculine gays will not be able to live together.

feminists are trying to turn all people into females because they hate masculinity,  traditionalists demand that gender must be defined biologically while we should allow everyone to chose their own desired gender.



Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 11, 2014, 12:22:13 PM
I haven't read the whole thread but I just wanted to quickly put in my $0.02.

Thank you for weighing in.

The problem lies in not understanding that gender differences go beyond womens' complex reproductive organs. I believe when an individual grasps that, he or she learns that mens' rights and integrity do have to be compromised for this equality.
As a quick example: The alleged wage/salary disparity of 79 cent on the Dollar is the result of bad (or perverse) statistic calculations. The missing 21 cent is from menstrual-related and pregnancy/child rearing time taken off work. This is easily demonstrated by the question of why corporations around the world aren't hiring exclusively (or preferably) women since their labour is so cheap. So, in order to amend this perceived disparity, men must suffer for showing up to work more often and not having health complications as an excuse. But I hear the science is in that Man Flu is a real thing, so maybe we can start using that to get paid and unpaid leave.

It is a sad fact for some that a career is sabotaged by reproduction. But only for some. I would suggest if you want to be a CEO or a physicist you have your womb removed or do as my aunt did and get one of those coils to prevent sperm making their journey. It's just how it is.
Most people are perfectly fine with either taking 3+ years out of work or not having children at all.

As for the suggestion that only ambition-less women having babies would be a bad thing, relax. It doesn't actually work that way. Genetic diversity is more forgiving. Idiocracy still has a point, though. Reckless, stupid, and uneducated people are having the increasing majority of the children. But as the narrative of history continues, the lowest common denominator's intelligence is rising.

This guy entrenched in this institution sounds like a real prick. But that's all he is. It's not institutionalized sexism. We have to realise there's a difference and that WE CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF PREJUDICE if we want to live in a Minarchist or Libertarian world.
On the other side of the coin: My mother worked for Boston Scientific. She gave them 7 years of her life. She rose up through the ranks and eventually got a desk job. She lost that job due to incompetence which broke both our hearts. However, my (minor) sister fell ill. She experienced mental difficulties. Boston Scientific, being the grand corporation it is, allowed her 2 years paid leave. She continued on paid leave for 4 years on the kindness of an unknown individual who turned a blind eye to the situation. Even after losing her pay, she still receives bonuses and gifts.
Positive discrimination.
The MRM fears (and we have to science to prove our fears worthy) that positive discrimination towards females is not going to end with some legislation. It is literally encoded into our genetics and, some would argue, arose through Evolutionary Psychology. The MRM, MGTOW, and related movements accepts this as a fact of life and feel the only answer to it is educating men on how that dynamic works. This is an inescapable reality. I know it might be hard for you and most women to swallow that there are some things you're stuck with and some things you can never have - but I often dream of flying and consider it an offence to my dignity as a Spiritual being that society has prohibited me from having wings..... sarcasm, if you didn't pick up on it.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 11, 2014, 02:47:07 PM
I haven't read the whole thread ...


I suspect you are not in a minority here or maybe it's just me being lazy as usual.

Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.


I'll second that proposal, not so much the renaming because naming things consciously in a way that satisfies all interested parties seems to be so extremely difficult that even our good friend MMD wasn't able to make much headway (although he did manage, in his scientific estimation, to stop one child being abused in the process (http://nullrefer.com/?https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40241-mens-rightsgender-issues-category/#entry369004) so perhaps all is not lost).

I watched another video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAgN5XzvFR0) by our Mancunian (I think) friend that seems to me to be relevant to the development of this thread, although it's not hard on-topic.
I find it refreshing to see psychology being addressed in such a positive and constructive manner. How different is this fellow, who freely and even apologetically states his prejudices/position without requiring it to be universally accepted, from Molyneux, who sits on an imaginary throne and passes down rulings.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 11, 2014, 07:11:04 PM
I'll second that proposal, not so much the renaming because naming things consciously in a way that satisfies all interested parties seems to be so extremely difficult
It is not difficult at all and we already have general human rights movements who do much more than feminists to help those who really need it.
those who are interested in human rights or egalitarianism(which is just another name for socialism) can just say so without attempting to rename something completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 11, 2014, 07:33:31 PM

Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?  Too many people have too much hurt inside and lash out at each other instead of dealing with what is going on inside.  I think that is true of some feminists and some MRA dudes.  Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.

I don't think that renaming anything would make any difference.  People say all sorts of things with their mouths and keyboards, but their behaviour says a lot more.

edit: grammar

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 11, 2014, 11:29:57 PM

Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?  Too many people have too much hurt inside and lash out at each other instead of dealing with what is going on inside.  I think that is true of some feminists and some MRA dudes.  Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.

I don't think that renaming anything would make any difference.  People say all sorts of things with their mouths and keyboards, but their behaviour says a lot more.

edit: grammar

Yes, I agree with Kaz.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 12, 2014, 12:23:25 AM
I think it is good that we are now beginning to debate the concept of equality. Warning, this is going to be a long, dense post, but I am trying to be thorough without being redundant.

I appreciate your input very much, LoverofFDRAddict​. And just to clarify to other thread participants, I do recognize biological differences, but as LoverofFDRAddict said, we are different in some ways and similar in so many more.

Quote from: LoverofFDRAddict
I think the crazy feminists... are ... lesbians

I feel a duty to comment on this, however: I'm going to overlook the 'crazy' and 'idiots' part (because ableism a whole other topic that few people recognize) but I think we can at least agree that it is out of line and scapegoating to blame misandry or delusional beliefs on homosexual females, and that just makes no sense. If you disagree and you have some belief that lesbians have something wrong with them, and you therefore do not wish to apologize for that homophobic remark, then we'll set that aside because I have something else I wish to discuss:

I want to tell you what equality means to me; then I am going to ask you all, what does equality mean to you?

To me, equality does not exactly mean 'sameness' in every sense of the word. There are particular things that everyone wants to have 'equal' stances on. Indeed, the word itself is vague and open to interpretation, and that is why a discussion on its meaning will clarify things. The challenge is that we do not have the nuances in our language to distinguish between certain types of equality, and that makes it hard to communicate. 

Quote from: Omega
IT has nothing to do with supremacy. It is simple logic that if feminism is about women issues it is not about equality by definition. If you are fighting for equality you cannot specialize on any group because this is against logic.

I'm glad you and I agree that it has nothing to do with supremacy, as in the 'white supremacy' comparisons made in this thread are false equivalences. But it does have to do with equality, as in, fighting for equal rights for women, as in, bringing women to a level of equal status in law, economics, and culture. Yes, it doesn't mean every person is being given equal attention in feminist activism, but doesn't preclude achieving equality of opportunity. It's not like I have to concentrate on every aspect of a task simultaneously, at the same time, in order to get it done.

Quote from: Omega
Your concept of equality is wrong itself.  It is exactly form of discrimination if you provide some benefits for people with monthly cycle. ... What you say is basically I have vagina so I deserve special treatment.

We have to think of this in terms of: would you provide benefits to people who had certain disabilities?

In seeking equality, I think one has to strike a certain balance. I think it is fair to provide benefits sometimes because the reality is that we are not born or raised with the very same advantages. So, my idea of an equal society is one that would balance out, or compensate for, those particular disadvantages, to where the person can compete on relatively the same level as everyone else. Not all disadvantages necessarily, and compensation can occur in a number of ways (not necessarily by government), but we can discuss specific ones.

Having a period, for example, needn't be a disadvantage that prevents a woman from being able to keep a job: some level of cultural sympathy and understanding (as opposed to shaming, although we don't have that in Western cultures, I think) should be enough for the times one has to go to the bathroom. Some women have severe periods, but things can be done to lessen them or work around it. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, but some forms of birth control can stop periods altogether.

In my school, there are a small handful of people who get around in wheelchairs. People know better than to stampede them in the halls, and some have sense enough to open doors for them and give them a push sometimes, because that's courtesy to someone who has physical disadvantages. And I think a good society should treat people with physical disadvantages with dignity, whoever is in that wheelchair.

Another comparison. It is considered slimy to punch someone in the face specifically when they are wearing glasses. I'm not saying it's good to punch someone in the face, or punch them at all, but it is especially bad to punch someone's face while they are wearing glasses.

Now, most healthy women are generally able to open doors, navigate puddles, carry most things (if you have any doubts, try carrying one or more toddlers!), do maths, and so on, by themselves. And I don't think most women, especially feminists, are flattered by chivalry. If they are, they are brainwashed. Because what chivalry is, is doing things for women, even while they are perfectly capable of doing those things themselves. In effect, it's not treating them like full grown adults, and that's not very good if you want full grown adults to be responsible. Hopefully in 2014, only people from older generations still conform to chivalry, because that is a meme that needs to die off!

And I'm not saying that women should be expected to do things they are physically not able to do (such as lift large heavy objects) without injuring themselves, but neither should a man be expected to lift more than his body can lift without causing injury to himself. The difference there is not simply sexual dimorphism, because dainty men and burly women do exist (and thus it would be a clumsy policy), so it is more an issue of a body's size and strength in general, in its capacity to do certain tasks. It would of course be silly to advocate that everyone must do the very same things, regardless of their capabilities, to the point of injury, for the sake of "equality"; in fact many would find such a policy insufferable. So that is not the kind of equality I (and I'm sure others) aim for.

Quote
If I employ someone I will not bother with people who are going to cause my problems. If I employ you I expect you o work not take care of your children or anything else.

I can only make the observation that this is the natural inclination of employers in a capitalist/neoliberal economy. Now, I'm not even making a judgment on that, because regardless of political alignment, one can make these observations: The more we tend towards an economy where the employers give employees as few benefits as possible, the more the employer sees the employee as nothing more than some numbers on a balance sheet. So, they will discriminate against (refuse to hire) a range of people in order to reap the absolute maximum short term profits, and that does include women, but also disabled people, young people, and old people. They also discriminate against people of color, and homosexuals, but I have no idea what that has to do with profit margins... Anyway, in a pure free market economy, or highly neoliberal one, there is little to nothing that can stop this from happening. The system then gets tampered with, in order to fix these problems -- which has taken the form of governments mandating things like equal opportunity employment, which I know many Libertarians and other conservatives dislike. But to that end, there is no solution but to change that economic system, and yes I know Libertarians and conservatives hate that. 

Still, whatever we do, I just don't think this reality justifies the discrimination, because I don't think people are nothing more than numbers on a balance sheet. In other words, as long as you have market economy where employers and entrepreneurs are free to choose whom to hire and fire for the purposes of increasing profits to a perfectionistic degree (nocompromises), employees will be discriminated against as much as possible, because to the employer, the monetary value of the employee is all that matters; by default, there are no equal opportunities in this situation. I leave it at that, because I do not want to veer the discussion off course.

Quote
We have to realise there's a difference and that WE CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF PREJUDICE if we want to live in a Minarchist or Libertarian world.

Zetaman is right. 

My idea of a good society is one where each person has the freedom to develop his or her full potential, regardless of his or her social standing and the preconceptions surrounding that; a society where senseless preconceptions do not create an artificial, invisible box that becomes like a jail. That's what I think about when I say I want equality.

What do you think about equality?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 12, 2014, 06:29:41 AM
Quote
In seeking equality, I think one has to strike a certain balance.
You provided many examples but not actual definition.

talking about people with disabilities I also disagree with that inequality when those people get special document which declares them entitles to certain things.
I believe we should take care of disabilities not people who have them. Like if you are hurt you can use parking lot for disabled people but not when you have some pimple on you ass and because some doctor doctor gives you right to use good parking lots.

I think we all agree that women are not disabled in any way and no less capable than men.
so argument of disability is irrelevant and there is nothing to compensate.


Chivalry is different issue which. I believe is supposed to be pickup line to start conversation
If I have no interest in that women I will just ignore her like blank space.
Sometimes it is just normal thing to hold the door for someone who is carrying heavy stuff.
Instead of killing chivalry I think women should just do same for men, unless feminists really hate men.


Quote
The more we tend towards an economy where the employers give employees as few benefits as possible
This is obsolete idea, now employers are eager to provide best possible environment for his employees because this results improved productivity.
Only low paid jobs can be neglected because productivity does not change if working conditions get worse.

So if women have some specific needs they will be always met in good jobs and this is not an issue.
People with good skills are very valuable and thus it is extremely stupid to reject certain engineer because of wrong skin color or gender. No mater how racist you are you still prefer black gay who knows his job, than some white heterosexual playboy who is who can only harass other employees.
If discrimination is taking place in some company it is good sign that this company is inefficient and dying.

What is more important that if you decide to raise kids you must go away for considerable amount of time. If you work as designer or engineer or scientist or anything else who makes important decisions you cant just halt your project for a year or more at random time and you cant delegate your job to anyone else to continue.
No amount of laws will be able to change anything here, because those jobs require absolute dedication, you can't even get sick.
Nobody who has plans to have kids will ever consider taking such job seriously, and if you declare that you have such plans it is obvious that you  are just parasite who must be avoided.

Women as statistically more wiling to raise kids and they have low interest to engineering or other creative jobs so naturally they will get paid less on average However considering that children should be raised in family of 2 parents it is not important who is paid more as long as family get enough money to survive.
Single mother or single fathers should be highly discouraged because they cant provide enough attention to their children.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 12, 2014, 08:43:10 PM
Yes, I agree, Omega, with most of the first part.

The bit on economics I don't. One thing is that wages don't necessarily rise in tandem with productivity. Computers made people more productive overall, but they don't get paid more for it. The underlying dynamic is it all depends on how cheap and easy you are to replace as a worker, what your employer will give you in terms of money and benefits. In the market, the price (wage) of your labor is subject to supply and demand. One notable example is that there is a disturbing trend recently where brilliant professors are being replaced by "adjunct professors" who are basically young, don't know much, and get stuck teaching a class not because they are really good at teaching or because they have innovative and brilliant ideas, but because they are desperate for money. I'm not sure this will help create more skilled engineers or whatever.

Quote
so argument of disability is irrelevant and there is nothing to compensate.

It's not irrelevant, though. We're not all born with the same capacities, sometimes in ways that make a lot of difference in how we navigate this society. Disabilities, or simply biological traits or deficiencies. I think it is relevant to how to envision a society that regards people as equal, because we can't treat everyone the same, but I think it doesn't matter because what we should do is treat everyone in a way that signifies their equal value as human beings, such that no one is inferior. It is one thing to consider, I believe.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on June 13, 2014, 11:31:16 AM
I'm so sorry if I came off at homophobic!!!  I have a gay aunt and sister so I'm not one bit homophobic, I was just logically assuming that women who think all men should be killed or who think penis vagina sex is always rape are clearly not interested in sex with men so they are either damaged from abuse or lesbians.  If they're straight and like men they are idiots because well, killing all men won't help the good man shortage.  Either that or maybe they've never had good sex so they don't know what they are missing because why the heck would you want to give that up?  It wasn't meant to imply that lesbians in general feel that way or anything negative about the lesbian community.

Another thing I think is sexist is that men can go topless in any city they want, at least, from what I know, but women can't be topless in most cities.  I'm guessing most men wouldn't be opposed to changing that though…but it's something that has bothered me because I'm big believer in ending our culture's demonization of sexuality and our beautiful bodies.  But I also think full nudity should be legal for both sexes.

Random comment to let you males know all the joy of femaledom you may have missed out if you were born with a penis; I'm healed now that I eat paleo and do Crossfit, but back when I was a vegetarian I used to have debilitating cramps that would cause me to be writhing on the floor yelling out in pain sometimes.  You'd think that much pain would only happen to women during birth, but no, lucky me got to have it once a month.  I never asked for anything from work for it, just on those days I would have to sometimes be on the floor in the lab while I waited for the advil to kick in.  I'm just saying, some things about being female are just physically demanding.  I've never been pregnant but the women I know who have been say it's really hard on your body and you get tired all the time, especially during the first and last trimester.  I guess making a new human inside your body is hard work in itself :)  Anyways, I strongly feel like Lee Li that equality doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone the same all the time.

I have actually discussed this issue a ton with other female physicists and we as a group feel it would be really stupid for society to throw away our awesome skills, abilities and what we can contribute to science just because we also want to have families.

I'm no expert in child rearing but I do think babies should be breast fed for at least 6 months but better for a year and they should be home with a parent or other guardian who can give them the attention they need till they are maybe 2-3.  It's way easier for the mother to do this than the dad during the breast feeding time.  Some women I know came back to work part time and their partner also worked part time, so they could both get back to work but also have a parent with the child during that first few years and only have to pump part time.  I'd love to find a man willing to do that!  I think most of the science gals I know actually want to go back to work at least some because they miss using their brains, but they also want to be there for their kiddos.  I'm pretty sure I'd feel that way after being home for a long time alone with a baby and no other adults to talk to.

To me, having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity and the pressure I see here to chose between a family and career just seems like a false dichotomy.  What if someone told men in careers that they had to stop seeking sex from females or some other fundamentally masculine thing that you find is part of your identity as a male?  Why throw away all the skills and ability because we may need to take a bit of time off when we make a baby inside our bodies?  Procreation is part of the definition of life for goodness sakes!  I would find life to be very empty without the emotional connection I have to other humans, which is part of why I find FDR to be so destructive as it encourages people to push away people who love them.  The ultimate love is the love between a parent and a child;  this is biologically true at least for women, as the same neural circuits that are meant to make us fall in love with our babies are used to a much lesser degree to make us fall in love with the men who put the babies in us in the first place.  (Read the book "The Chemistry Between US" to learn about this, very interesting book)  As much as my heart is hurting now I would never go back and take away the time of love and joy that I had with my boyfriend before he joined FDR.  Love is amazing!  I think it is the best and the worst drug.  You want to tell me that I have to chose between the ultimate love and doing something higher with my life outside of the home?  WHY!!?!!!

To me that is not equality.  That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity.  Why can't we all work to our strengths?  It doesn't have to be a battle, both genders have a lot to offer and families are also important to take care of.  People live a long time and children only need really intensive, one on one care for the first few years, so, if women on average have two children that's just ~6 years of less than intense work but another ~30 are left for kicking ass out in the world.

On the other hand, I do see women in dual income households often end up quite stressed and getting anxiety, depression, stress, which can't be good for us, our menfolk or the children.  In fact, I read a paper recently that said that women are LESS happy now than they were back before feminism.  Personally, I just think modern life is pushing all our brains and bodies to the limits of our genes; we aren't really meant to do this much and it's stressing us out, but it seems to effect women worse since we are more often diagnosed with mental illnesses.  Or maybe we just seek out help more often?  Maybe we are all sick in the head in modern life.  Certainly my ex boyfriend is :(  Poor guy.

Sorry if this is all over the place but I'm going through a breakup so you can imagine my brain isn't up to it's normal self.  Right now I'm really wishing I had a job that was manual labor because knowledge work is really difficult when you are having personal problems!
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 13, 2014, 01:59:57 PM
Thanks for your post LoverofFDRAddict! I enjoyed it and am in agreement.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: ZetaMan on June 14, 2014, 01:30:05 AM
LoverofFDRAddict:
How is having to make a practical choice a lack of equality?
Do you want to start complaining about how you can't be a rock star because you're so busy curing cancer or whatever it is you do in your lab?
Sure, it's unfair. A lot of things are unfair in this world. I don't ever recall anyone telling me that anything had to be fair - nor have I ever met anyone with the authority to give me that assurance.

Instead of it being a gender-based issue, why don't we just give people in general the right to take extra-long extended breaks (partially with pay) from their career. Everyone deserves to spend some time doing something different, surely. One or more of those periods could be used to raise children.
And when it comes to raising children, the time you've allotted for that commitment is very, very small considering what we know about child development.

You just love your work. Admit that. And stop complaining that you can't do anything else because you're so committed to it.
This is what Feminism does to womens' minds - convinces y'all that you're actually owed something. Like "The Patriarchy" is forbidding you from having something.

----

I don't mean to ignore and fly right past everything else you've shared. I've taken it all on board.

I once dated a girl who had SERIOUSLY SEVERE menstrual pains. I've witnessed it and counted my lucky stars I didn't have this problem. Turns out she had cysts inside her. She couldn't move AT ALL. She curled up and remained completely still.

My wife is going through difficulties lately. She's improved a lot in the past 4 months when it started to come back on the regular - but 2 years prior she would bleed, bleed, bleed, have chunks fall out of her, bleed, bleed, bleed. Last year was the worst - she couldn't walk 10 seconds without losing her breath for the lack of iron and blood to carry oxygen.

I may not know what it's like to endure that physical pain, but note that very few women have these complications - but every man has to put up with the passive-aggressive shit that results from every cycle.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 15, 2014, 07:57:33 AM
Instead of it being a gender-based issue, why don't we just give people in general the right to take extra-long extended breaks (partially with pay) from their career. Everyone deserves to spend some time doing something different, surely. One or more of those periods could be used to raise children.

This will not solve anything, because men will just not use these breaks, since they are more committed to their work than women.
One notable example is that there is a disturbing trend recently where brilliant professors are being replaced by "adjunct professors" who are basically young, don't know much, and get stuck teaching a class not because they are really good at teaching or because they have innovative and brilliant ideas, but because they are desperate for money. I'm not sure this will help create more skilled engineers or whatever.

Only mad employer will employ worker who is desperate for money to work in any creative job.
If that happens it is evident that university turned in to factory. which does not need any new ideas, but only needs to work according to rules.

Quote
I think it is relevant to how to envision a society that regards people as equal, because we can't treat everyone the same, but I think it doesn't matter because what we should do is treat everyone in a way that signifies their equal value as human beings, such that no one is inferior. It is one thing to consider, I believe.
I am not sure what exactly you mean here, but I asume that society must allow everyone to be useful in some way.
However what i was talking about is compensation of disabilities, like if we have Olympic champions and here is some cripple with no legs who also wants to participate in the race. and demands to make different rules for him than for everyone else because his disability does not allow him to compete with others.
Same way in job market, women demand different laws for them to compete with men to compensate their supposed disabilities.
I think everybody agrees that men and women are different and can express their value in different areas. If someone is choosing wrong area to express themselves it is their own problem.
But it is wrong to use disability as advantage when If I am one eye blind blind I will get paid twice more for same job as one  with two eyes.

But I also think full nudity should be legal for both sexes.
I thing this is different issue from feminism, because full nudity is banned for same reason as prostitution, it will undermine sexual value of nude body.
And also this is too provocative, because I believe it is very nasty thing to display something to other what they cant get. I guess you don't want men to touch your naked body in the street or drool while seeing it and take photos or videos.

Quote
I'm just saying, some things about being female are just physically demanding. 
being man is also not so easy men live shorter than women after all.

Quote
I have actually discussed this issue a ton with other female physicists and we as a group feel it would be really stupid for society to throw away our awesome skills, abilities and what we can contribute to science just because we also want to have families.

There are plenty of people with skills who cannot be utilized because of some reason, usually we have to make choices what skill we will utilize.

Quote
I think most of the science gals I know actually want to go back to work at least some because they miss using their brains, but they also want to be there for their kiddos.  I'm pretty sure I'd feel that way after being home for a long time alone with a baby and no other adults to talk to.
So are you using your work as source of fun or you use it as source of money?
I think most people hate their jobs and just endure that torture to get paid.



Quote
To me, having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity and the pressure I see here to chose between a family and career just seems like a false dichotomy.
It is not false dichotomy because quantum mechanic rules do not apply to humans, you cant be everywhere at once.  so you have to chose.
You will be incapable to work and raise kid at same time because of laws of physic.
also you cannot interleave jobs when they are highly competitive. As scientist  or businessman you probably should feel it as constant battle who will do it first. It is like asking for time to rest in Olympic race.


Quote
To me that is not equality.  That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity.  Why can't we all work to our strengths?
 
This is not inequality, it is fundamental flaw in mind of female when you desire to do something you can't do physically.

Quote
Personally, I just think modern life is pushing all our brains and bodies to the limits of our genes; we aren't really meant to do this much and it's stressing us out, but it seems to effect women worse since we are more often diagnosed with mental illnesses.  Or maybe we just seek out help more often?  Maybe we are all sick in the head in modern life.  Certainly my ex boyfriend is :(  Poor guy.

I see women as very contradictory beings who have too many mental contradictions like that one you mentioned. It also includes sexuality where women are physically attracted to completely unsuitable males but feel cold to those who are well suited for them.
That's why women are often considered to be mentally inferior to men because they just cant make up their mind, they have so many contradicting needs that can not be satisfied. Females were all considered to me mad in old times because you newer know what they will do.

Men are much more straightforward because they have mostly one goal in life which is domination (getting better that others)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 15, 2014, 11:12:56 AM
Omega, to your whole post: citation please. You are making sweeping generalizations.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 15, 2014, 11:25:58 AM
Omega, one more observation: rather than being interested in answering my question of what you think equality looks like, you started pontificating about women. I'd prefer to hear what your ideal society sounds like.

Edit: realized 'pontificate' was the word I was looking for
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 15, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
Omega, one more observation: rather than being interested in answering my question of what you think equality looks like, you started pontificating about women. I'd prefer to hear what your ideal society sounds like.
Edit: realized 'pontificate' was the word I was looking for

Ttis was my reply to LoverofFDRAddict who made claims that she wants contradictory things.
lie eating cake and keeping it too.

Talking about ideal society , I already described it earlier, I would like gender to become matter of choice. while everything else stays essentially same as it was.

Quote
Omega, to your whole post: citation please. You are making sweeping generalizations.
I do not see reason for citations, if you disagree with something specific, you can ask for proof, If you think something is irrelevant just ignore that part .

here are no generalizations since all those conclusions come from claims of the poster to which I reply.







Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 16, 2014, 01:18:56 AM
Omega, you need proof for all the claims you made about women. All of them. Yes, every single one. Why? Because those are extraordinary claims. Because they are not based in science. Because I can tell that you are making stuff up. If you make an assertion, generally you need to back it up.

Quote from: Omega
Only mad employer will employ worker who is desperate for money to work in any creative job.
If that happens it is evident that university turned in to factory. which does not need any new ideas, but only needs to work according to rules.
Well, that is what is happening, apparently. Adjunct professors are on the rise -- they are not getting paid well, they iirc don't get tenure, they are less equipped to teach students, etc.

Quote from: Omega
Talking about ideal society , I already described it earlier, I would like gender to become matter of choice.
Okay, well that's basically what feminists want. ;)

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 16, 2014, 03:33:50 PM
Omega, you need proof for all the claims you made about women. All of them. Yes, every single one. Why? Because those are extraordinary claims. Because they are not based in science. Because I can tell that you are making stuff up. If you make an assertion, generally you need to back it up.
As I already told you these my claims are derived from text of LoverofFDRAddict. and she is generalizing that all women by saying "having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity", "That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity."

also my claims are based on PUA science. I also doubted if these claims are true, but considerable amount of men did lots of research how to pick up and seduce women and they developed decent theories how female brain works.
If you like I can find you few lectures on you tube of books about that.

Quote
Okay, well that's basically what feminists want. ;)
No, it is not what feminists want, they want advantages of masculinity while retaining femininity.
in other words they want to eat their cake and keep it too.

If feminists just wanted to be capable to chose their stereotypical gender  they would demand to change how men live.
If woman decides to enter society of men she must start acting like man not demand every man to turn into woman and adapt to her needs.

lest say you enter group of men who make dirty jokes and cuss like sailors. how do you behave:
1: Join them doing same
2: Get offended by their behavior and demand to change it to suit your needs.

if you enter workplace where other are men and get sexually harassed what do you do:
1 retaliate by kicking offender in the balls
2 get offended and complain to authority or feminist friends.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 16, 2014, 07:38:35 PM
Quote from: Omega
As I already told you these my claims are derived from text of LoverofFDRAddict. and she is generalizing that all women by saying "having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity", "That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity."

She is talking from subjective, nonscientific experience about herself, whereas you are pontificating as if you know some universal, immutable truths about women.

Quote from: Omega
also my claims are based on PUA science. I also doubted if these claims are true, but considerable amount of men did lots of research how to pick up and seduce women and they developed decent theories how female brain works.
If you like I can find you few lectures on you tube of books about that.
Unfortunately, we've already established that your understanding of science is very poor. I don't fault you for that, but I won't respect your pretense of knowledge. Either don't appeal to science, or learn how to actually do science.
I'm familiar with the basics of Pick-up Asshat pseudoscience. Someday I intend on writing long diatribes debunking every bit of it, but I'm sure someone out there has already gotten a head start for me. Just know that that shit is not recognized as valid by mainstream psychology.

Quote from: Omega
No, it is not what feminists want, they want advantages of masculinity while retaining femininity.
in other words they want to eat their cake and keep it too.

If feminists just wanted to be capable to chose their stereotypical gender  they would demand to change how men live.
If woman decides to enter society of men she must start acting like man not demand every man to turn into woman and adapt to her needs.

lest say you enter group of men who make dirty jokes and cuss like sailors. how do you behave:
1: Join them doing same
2: Get offended by their behavior and demand to change it to suit your needs.

if you enter workplace where other are men and get sexually harassed what do you do:
1 retaliate by kicking offender in the balls
2 get offended and complain to authority or feminist friends.
Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, brah
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 16, 2014, 08:44:35 PM
Unfortunately, we've already established that your understanding of science is very poor. I don't fault you for that, but I won't respect your pretense of knowledge. Either don't appeal to science, or learn how to actually do science.
I'm familiar with the basics of Pick-up Asshat pseudoscience. Someday I intend on writing long diatribes debunking every bit of it, but I'm sure someone out there has already gotten a head start for me. Just know that that shit is not recognized as valid by mainstream psychology.

Science from pseudoscience differs by fact that science actually works,
and as i see PUA methods are confirmed to work well.
If you want to debunk them you must prove that your pick up method works better.
PUA's are not some crazy fanatics who hate women, they have very objective goal and work on developing most effective methods to achieve it. While mainstream science has very little interest in truth and it is severely affected by censorship and work ethic.


Quote
Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, brah
No there is plenty of choices.
all what matters is if you expect everyone adapt to your needs your you adapt to everyone else.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: HonestlyMate on June 16, 2014, 10:09:58 PM
Feminism originally was simply a part of the struggle for equality, civil rights, etc. There's no dispute about that. The feminism you're attacking has little to nothing to do with that, yet they still call themselves that... I suppose. I'm not sure how to respond to you - and I really have nothing to do with this discussion; however I don't give a damn so here goes:

People seek group and identity belongings. Most the people you see shouting about this or that in regards to MRAs or Feminists or what have you that are attacking the identity of others while clinging to a group identity of their own simply have had bad individual experiences and extrapolate it and generalize it to the entirety of whatever characteristics can be described of the person(s) that they (rightfully or wrongfully) feel hurt them. In many cases you really do have a mixture of weird clashes between mainstream thought and media, and reality, on both sides. Mainstream media and politics like to play them up against eachother, it's no coincidence that identity politics are now splitting up the people's movements - it's a power play. New style  'identity politics trumps all' thinking can basically have its goals achieved without changing the structure of society at all, or ever being even remotely a danger to power. (this goes both ways, notice how the "choices" for the concerned citizens is being painted in the media as "if you believe in anything conspiratorial you must be this, and if you don't believe in that but only organic eruptions of societal patterns then you must be 'that'; if you think [this absolute] then you're this, if you disagree then you must be this [other absolute] fighting the first one. (but never touch the money and wealth power controlling society)]"


There really is no difference (other than purely biological) between the genders. When you bring up things like pickup skills or whatever - these are rituals and games that some people play, both genders; while others don't.
Individually, flaw wise, thought wise etc. there's no difference, it's just a matter of exclusion.

Same as "racism" or anything else that creates an 'other'. While you can say there are trends and "weights" in the statistics, when you look at individual scenarios you always have to take into account that specific individual existence, their story, etc. That's something that people who cling to red pill, rad-mra, and rad-fem, or blue pill, or anything else many many times all ignore.

They just want someone to exclude. Someone who they can treat as automatons, scripts to manipulate. This separation between people who look for this and those that do not, does not follow any gender or racial lines; but they sure to like to mark gender and racial lines in the sand retroactively.

Yes pickup "tricks" work on a lot of women, as they do on a lot of men. It says nothing about either men or women.

./feel free to mod/delete this, it's a buzzed rant and I'm not sure who I'm replying to. Anyway, I love reading this forum, but whatever.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 17, 2014, 05:29:05 AM
Yes pickup "tricks" work on a lot of women, as they do on a lot of men. It says nothing about either men or women.
Pic up tricks are different for men and women and they say a lot about both of sexes. because they tap into subconscious mind. No matter is woman brags how independent she is and how she wants equality, if that woman goes to bet with guy who treat her like his well trained dog, it shows us that this woman is really nothing more than dog in lion skin.
same can be said about other choices, if certain woman get abused a lot and she contestant chooses guys who abuse her it is her deliberate choice he may consciously hate her life, but unconsciously she is seeking to be abused.

Of course everyone makes mistakes but those who do not learn from their mistakes can be suspected to like them.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 17, 2014, 07:26:06 AM
Of course everyone makes mistakes but those who do not learn from their mistakes can be suspected to like them.

I think that's true. Some areas of psychology have obsessed for years about the reason people don't learn from their mistakes. Molyneux hisself makes a ton of money out of all this and starts inventing stories in his exquisitely crafted mind about a fellow called Simon who was, in Stef's narrative, a boxer who chose that profession because his father used to stuff him inside an old cardboard box, the young lad being so ugly that he preferred not to regard him, or something like that.
What we end up with, if we follow that line of reasoning, is a whole troop of howling human beings who are doing precisely what they want but simultaneously complaining about it and blaming others for it whenever results are suboptimal (which, life being life, they frequently are).
If you are unfortunate enough to be one of the people being blamed for such terrible things, then I wish you fortitude. Your perceived guilt cannot be assuaged with friendly smiles, cups of tea or bottles of Scotch, because to release you from your assigned role would require your accusers to take responsibility for their actions entirely, and that can be quite tiresome and may even involve some expense.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: HonestlyMate on June 17, 2014, 07:49:23 AM
The exact same thing can be said about males, mate. There are plenty of guys with the exact same behaviour; prone to abusive relationships. Plenty of "lion"-guys being owned by their partner.
People are like that.

What you notice might be based in a great deal on the lens (to use a cliche, which I hate by the way - this particular one especially - "it's all perspective!", ugh. No, it ain't. But sometimes it can be.) you use to view the world with.

Attraction makes things very different. If you are attracted to women and view them as a potential partner, there is an additional layer to what you see in them. It's not there to those you are not attracted to. You might not recognize the behaviour patterns in males (if you are male, and not attracted to males) around you relationship-wise, so maybe you don't see the character you're describing in a woman in the post of yours that I'm replying to; in a man, because you don't pickup on those signs to begin with.

And again even more so related to the comment you make about abuse.


 ... if certain woman get abused a lot and she contestant chooses guys who abuse her it is her deliberate choice he may consciously hate her life, but unconsciously she is seeking to be abused.


The exact same thing... goes for males. It might be a reoccurring pattern, it might be based in who knows what, it could be for a number of reasons - but people ending up in abusive relationships is kind of the horror/scare of relationships. Think about the advice that quite a few of the "life coaches" that might share your views, give, to their audience; "get out of toxic relations! Remove the vampires in your life!".

They're telling the (in this context) mostly male audience to get out of... the exact same kind of relationship you are describing. (or in some cases, creating it out of thin air and unnecessarily creating the conflict to entrap his audience, such as what Molyenux might be doing)

Yes, some of these people might be unconsciously "seeking to be abused"; others are not, however. It says nothing about choice, though (in fact, by the very premise of it being an unconscious decision to begin with, makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with choice...), and even less about genders. (and I'm not sure if you're somehow using that as a way of making the entire notion of someone being caught in an abusive relationship as "your own fault"?)

There are however some types of abusive relationships and abuse in general that are much more noticeable than others. That has much to do with media imagery, and culturally reinforced gender roles. (in other words, no different than putting on a uniform; except you might not know you put it on to begin with)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 17, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
Yes, some of these people might be unconsciously "seeking to be abused"; others are not, however. It says nothing about choice, though (in fact, by the very premise of it being an unconscious decision to begin with, makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with choice...)

Don't you think it is a potentially hazardous move to place people's unconscious choices outside their personal jurisdiction?
Murder, by analogy, carries a stiffer penalty, but manslaughter is still a crime. I might claim that I forgot to put the handbrake on or some other matter (and this is consequently within the realm of the unconscious mind), but I am still responsible for the damage that ensues. If I find myself being subjected to abuse and fail to remove myself from that situation, then I think I have a duty to examine my motives and make my peace with them. Otherwise surely we must forensically examine each harm done, to establish the percentage of unconscious drive and the percentage of premeditated choice of both aggressor and victim. I doubt many would come to the dock confessing to too much of the latter. You see, if we use unconscious desires as a prima facie argument to absolve a victim of complicity in his or her victimhood, then we must also use the same yardstick to judge and at least partially absolve the harm-doer. Indeed, this practice has become so pervasive (and profitable) in modern legal systems that it is not uncommon to find the aggressor rewarded and the victim punished still further.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: HonestlyMate on June 17, 2014, 01:27:12 PM
Yes, some of these people might be unconsciously "seeking to be abused"; others are not, however. It says nothing about choice, though (in fact, by the very premise of it being an unconscious decision to begin with, makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with choice...)

Don't you think it is a potentially hazardous move to place people's unconscious choices outside their personal jurisdiction?
Murder, by analogy, carries a stiffer penalty, but manslaughter is still a crime. I might claim that I forgot to put the handbrake on or some other matter (and this is consequently within the realm of the unconscious mind), but I am still responsible for the damage that ensues. If I find myself being subjected to abuse and fail to remove myself from that situation, then I think I have a duty to examine my motives and make my peace with them. Otherwise surely we must forensically examine each harm done, to establish the percentage of unconscious drive and the percentage of premeditated choice of both aggressor and victim. I doubt many would come to the dock confessing to too much of the latter. You see, if we use unconscious desires as a prima facie argument to absolve a victim of complicity in his or her victimhood, then we must also use the same yardstick to judge and at least partially absolve the harm-doer. Indeed, this practice has become so pervasive (and profitable) in modern legal systems that it is not uncommon to find the aggressor rewarded and the victim punished still further.

I don't exactly disagree with you on this, but I think there's a lot of nuances to it based on context and I'd draw clear lines between any situation where something is actively being done or a specific task requiring continued action and judgement (preferably focused); and a more or less passive/at ease situation where the person is more or less not fully aware of "actively doing the task of living and socialising" (I don't think very many are).

The situation of feeling an attraction that you can't explain, or casually picking the purple candy at the store instead of the chocolate bar - that's the category I'd place many "unconscious" choices made when socialising/trying to create new connections or looking for a partner of some sort. It's sort of a "meh" context to begin with. The stereotype of the 'agent' in an abusive relationship will also typically be the more active part.

So you already have a more "safe" feeling situation (not like driving a crane, and you don't even really think about it as an "act" in the same sense as doing a specific task - probably), and you might already be showing off or playing into a pattern of someone who appears vulnerable (in which case yes, you would be "attracting" a certain kind of attention; but again a person looking for investment advice at a bank being taken advantage of by those that they think were friendly/helping them is "attracting" in the same manner; and that's not exactly something I'd want to excuse), if you're unlucky 'the stars will align' and off you go into the same pattern.

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't really apply it universally to begin with. Different categories, and most importantly looking at it on an individual case by case basis (as if it were a trial for that matter, and what the hell would I know about most people's relationships so scratch that I guess - but I hope you know what I mean).

I agree they should try to remove themselves from those situations, but while I don't discount all conceptions of what people refer to as choices and free will in the sense that you're sort of (I think) implying there - and I certainly don't discount the illusion of it - I think many times people ask much more than they know of the "victims"; in some cases asking them to break down walls between their conscious and "unconscious" mind that they themselves haven't had to even touch or think about (though obviously some have), because they were by circumstance alone lucky enough to not be stuck with that pattern that they didn't really know where came from.

Maybe their equivalent would simply be just as simple as that "purple candy or chocolate bar".

That'd make it enter existential unfairness, something people don't like to think about without either jumping into a framework of nihilism or claiming every decision is a choice that you "knew" and "made" full well - i.e blaming the poor for being poor; and that if not for "poor choices" and these unfortunate 'paths walked' then everything would be perfect and fine. Or it'd delve into other conceptions of it if the first don't fit - such as original sin, punishment from the past lives, etc.

But yea, that's a whole other matter. Actually what you brought up leads to a really long and far reaching point that I don't think has a specific answer.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on June 17, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
Thanks for the defense there.  Yes, I was talking about my experience and those of my peers and I don't pretend to know if they extrapolate to a larger population but I sometimes like to speculate.  But I try to be intellectually honest when I'm speculating and not act like my speculation is a fundamental truth about the universe.  Unlike Stef and his disciples like my ex.

Funny abuse came up of course in this thread.  This post is going to be all sidetrack but oh well, I hope the moderation in this forum isn't hard core.  I've always been one who dates nice nerdy guys who treat me well but lately I have been letting my ex get more and more verbally and emotionally abusive to me as he got more and more brainwashed.  The reason was that I could remember how sweet he used to be and I really hoped that man would come back, but he is gone completely.  He turned into a different person and doesn't respect any opinions outside of his own.  He turned into a total jerk.  Just because you joined a cult doesn't mean it's ok to be a dick.  I finally told him I won't be seeing him at all anymore.  I kept getting better when I get away from him for a few days because I'm actually a very happy person most of the time, then he would ask if I would let him stay at my place and he would start a huge fight and be mean to me, then a part of his tactic is to make me feel like it's all my fault and I'm the one not being supportive.  He is only a drain on my happiness, positiveness, energy and love right now.  He's a black hole and I need to stay away from the event horizon.

Personally, the way my ex blames women and talks lately, I think he is just turning into male version of a femiNazi.  Dude, grow up, take control of your life and start taking responsibility for your own choices and even for your own thoughts and internal world.  Blaming the other gender for all your problems in this modern life is just dumb whether you are male or female.  Part of how I know he is brainwashed is the way he speculates about my future actions or behavior based on what he has been listening to on FDR about women and feminists instead of basing in on how I have acted in the past in our relationship, ie. he is using generalizations on me instead of his actual experience.  It's like he listened to Moly bitch and generalize about women so long that he started to hate us all and not recognize that we are actually just people too.  That is the same thing that rad feminists get completely wrong.  Men OR women OR parents aren't all bad, everyone is just a person with some pros and cons, some things they are working on, some needs, etc.  My ex BF clearly needs to get some help and I can't help him with that now but I still don't think he is a bad person, just sick in the head.

I'm starting to think that FDR (and MRA?) attracts only men with low self esteem.  I am a very confident person, built through slowly accomplishing goals over time and pushing myself, but to me confidence leads me to be more humble and not assume that my opinions are true just because I believe they are.  Confidence leads me to being able to listen and hear and understand other perspectives.  The more I learn about other perspectives either my opinions evolve or get stronger and I think that is a good thing.  The whole FDR thing seems to be about getting so cocky in your opinions that you suddenly feel good about yourself, which feels great to someone who has low self esteem, and then you need to put other people down to keep feeling good about yourself.  Or maybe you think you can "save" them by showing them "the light" because you are on a high from that feeling and want to get others high too.  I can't really tell but I respect myself enough to realize that 1) I can't help him even if I stick around 2) I can't take this abusive behavior and still have enough love to give the people in my life who are actually kind and loving back to me and 3) Regardless of whether he leaves the cult or not, this man was never right for me.  Anyone who is capable of such a dark outlook on the world and such meanness to the person they supposedly love should never be the father of my children.

However, I also look at it as a learning experience.  I've never been in a relationship with a jerk and I always thought my friends who dated jerks were being so silly for putting up with their behavior.  Now I'm thankful my friends who have dated jerks are here to support me and let me know that I need to stop listening to my kind side and put my needs first.  Now I see how you can fall for someone and they can change.  Or they can be a jerk but you love them and you see why they are being a jerk and you hope you can be there for them so they can grow and change.  I'm just glad I only put up with it for a little while.  He changed so fast that it took me by surprise but thank god this all came out now before we had a family.  I can't believe I almost tried to procreate with this man!!!!

And I second the fact the men and women can be in abusive relationships.  My mom was the abusive one to my dad in my childhood, emotionally and verbally.  Seeing the way she treated my dad made me into the kind of person who lets her ex BF treat her the way I've let my ex treat me, as I'd rather be the victim than the aggressor.  But luckily we don't have 4 kids together so I can stick up for myself and get out now instead of having to make it work while that person is mentally ill and taking it out on the people around them who love them.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 17, 2014, 05:14:06 PM
Quote
The exact same thing can be said about males, mate. There are plenty of guys with the exact same behaviour; prone to abusive relationships. Plenty of "lion"-guys being owned by their partner.
People are like that.
Of course I agree, there was no question about that.

Quote
If you are attracted to women and view them as a potential partner, there is an additional layer to what you see in them.
Usually friend and mate selection is based on fact how do you fell with that person not by logical and rational evaluation of objective factors and character compatibility issues. thus it is unconscious. Women like to use word "chemistry" to describe that.
PUA science is how to make women feel what you want them to feel by pushing right buttons in their unconscious mind instead of relying on chance and acting naturally.
It is equivalent of female makeup when women try to modify their looks to manipulate male minds.
compare it to street hookers who look like clowns and almost all males will admit that they look silly, but they will still chose one of those painted clowns to spend a night instead of one which looks natural.

Quote
The exact same thing... goes for males. It might be a reoccurring pattern, it might be based in who knows what, it could be for a number of reasons - but people ending up in abusive relationships is kind of the horror/scare of relationships. Think about the advice that quite a few of the "life coaches" that might share your views, give, to their audience; "get out of toxic relations! Remove the vampires in your life!".
I newer said  that only females are susceptible. I mentioned abuse just as example of how people make choices.

Quote
Yes, some of these people might be unconsciously "seeking to be abused"; others are not, however. It says nothing about choice, though (in fact, by the very premise of it being an unconscious decision to begin with, makes it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with choice...), and even less about genders. (and I'm not sure if you're somehow using that as a way of making the entire notion of someone being caught in an abusive relationship as "your own fault"?)

Again, it is completely normal to make mistakes.  But I was talking about those people who repeat them over and over. Anyone can accidentally end in abusive relationship, but if this happens 3 or 5 times in a row it is either incredibly bad luck or deliberate choice, especially in times when victim has plenty of evidence to make correct judgement but still failed.

Quote
Think about the advice that quite a few of the "life coaches" that might share your views, give, to their audience; "get out of toxic relations! Remove the vampires in your life!".
This is off topic, but i just want to mention that I do not ever suggest to anyone to end relationships with anyone under any reason. (maybe one exception is intimate relationships with someone full of self hatred.)
I am completely against any kind of breakups, if relationship is unsuccessful it can just fade away but there must be no official termination. anyone who is trying to beak any of your relationships  is abuser.
Stefan perfectly falls under that category, along with those life coaches whom you mentioned.
But general marriage and family is also kind of same thing, because it supposes that you will cut your ties with all your previous friends and focus on you wife or husband, this make you dependent and vulnerable to abuse.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: King Schlong on June 17, 2014, 08:53:51 PM

I may not know what it's like to endure that physical pain, but note that very few women have these complications - but every man has to put up with the passive-aggressive shit that results from every cycle.

Too bad.  Cycle results in woman available to mate 24/7/365

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Kaz on June 17, 2014, 10:17:52 PM
They just want someone to exclude. Someone who they can treat as automatons, scripts to manipulate. This separation between people who look for this and those that do not, does not follow any gender or racial lines; but they sure to like to mark gender and racial lines in the sand retroactively.

Scapegoating.  Excuses and justifications based on pseudo-victimhood caused by a sense of entitlement.

./feel free to mod/delete this, it's a buzzed rant and I'm not sure who I'm replying to. Anyway, I love reading this forum, but whatever.

Hello Mate, good to meet you.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on June 18, 2014, 11:49:25 AM
I am completely against any kind of breakups, if relationship is unsuccessful it can just fade away but there must be no official termination. anyone who is trying to beak any of your relationships  is abuser.
Stefan perfectly falls under that category, along with those life coaches whom you mentioned.
But general marriage and family is also kind of same thing, because it supposes that you will cut your ties with all your previous friends and focus on you wife or husband, this make you dependent and vulnerable to abuse.
Wow, you are against any breakups?  That's a pretty extreme opinion.  Anyone trying to break up any of your relationships is an abuser?  What if the other person is physically, emotionally or verbally abusing you?  What if they are only a source of negativity in your life and you only just realized it?  My ex boyfriend is supposedly "breaking up" with me, but if he weren't I would be doing the breaking up because he is making my life hell.  That means I'm lucky to not be the abuser but if he wasn't willing to break up with me I would have to be the abuser?


I may not know what it's like to endure that physical pain, but note that very few women have these complications - but every man has to put up with the passive-aggressive shit that results from every cycle.
Too bad.  Cycle results in woman available to mate 24/7/365
One of the things I find kind of ironic about MRAs is that, I'm guessing, more single men are getting access to much more sex with women now than probably since hunter gatherer days and yet they are STILL whining because sometimes that sex comes at the cost of child support because, FYI, sex makes babies, in case you were raised in a red state and not told how the birds and the bees work.  If you are sleeping with a women you don't trust to use birth control when she told you she would, why the hell are you sleeping with her!?!?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 18, 2014, 12:11:43 PM
Wow, you are against any breakups?  That's a pretty extreme opinion.  Anyone trying to break up any of your relationships is an abuser?  What if the other person is physically, emotionally or verbally abusing you?  What if they are only a source of negativity in your life and you only just realized it?  My ex boyfriend is supposedly "breaking up" with me, but if he weren't I would be doing the breaking up because he is making my life hell.  That means I'm lucky to not be the abuser but if he wasn't willing to break up with me I would have to be the abuser?

If someone relationship is going too bad just halt it but do not terminate.
also if someone is abusing you I think best choice is to fight back and retaliate. only situation when you are powerless is when you are in relationship with some self hater. In that case you must be abuser yourself.

you did not understood me correctly: it was not about you or your friend deciding to break relationship, but some third party coming and trying to break you.
If someone else is trying to break your relationship with someone else only reason for doing that is to make you more vulnerable.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: King Schlong on June 18, 2014, 11:52:50 PM

also my claims are based on PUA science. I also doubted if these claims are true, but considerable amount of men did lots of research how to pick up and seduce women and they developed decent theories how female brain works.
If you like I can find you few lectures on you tube of books about that.


Bunk

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 24, 2014, 04:10:17 AM
Feminism is a depopulation (eugenics) program started by the government. 
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol311/211-236.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol311/211-236.pdf)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 24, 2014, 04:52:47 AM
I don't have time to read a 25 page PDF on this subject (or any other at present) but I think MikeTO raises a valid point. I have frequently mentioned divide and rule strategies implemented by those who pretend to govern us and there is no doubt in my mind that a gender war is perfectly in line with their plans. I'm not saying that the concerns of men and those of women should be minimized or disregarded, but the more we are able to find common ground and refrain from belligerence the less we follow this type of destructive agenda.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 24, 2014, 10:45:18 AM
Well it doesn't prove that feminism is a government project but an attempt for the government to reduce population.  It's just a start pointing. Mainly feminist are the puppets being brain washed.  In fact there''s enough proof that the government is against the people in other areas of politics.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 24, 2014, 01:08:31 PM
Well it doesn't prove that feminism is a government project but an attempt for the government to reduce population.  It's just a start pointing. Mainly feminist are the puppets being brain washed.  In fact there''s enough proof that the government is against the people in other areas of politics.

this depopulation idea is silly, because people are like cattle for farmers and every farmer desires more not less.
if depopulation was an objective there are far more efficient and cheap ways to turn lives into profit. for example slashing medical service quality and increasing prices would have great effect on population.

What we see today is exactly opposite, government is desperately trying to save its livestock of slaves. You even get paid for making children. why government would do that if their goal is depopulation, If you seek depopulation you tax children like china not pay for them.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 24, 2014, 04:55:35 PM
Well it doesn't prove that feminism is a government project but an attempt for the government to reduce population.  It's just a start pointing. Mainly feminist are the puppets being brain washed.  In fact there''s enough proof that the government is against the people in other areas of politics.


this depopulation idea is silly, because people are like cattle for farmers and every farmer desires more not less.
if depopulation was an objective there are far more efficient and cheap ways to turn lives into profit. for example slashing medical service quality and increasing prices would have great effect on population.

What we see today is exactly opposite, government is desperately trying to save its livestock of slaves. You even get paid for making children. why government would do that if their goal is depopulation, If you seek depopulation you tax children like china not pay for them.


Clearly you have done enough research.  We are about to have economic collapse.  Giving people money?  Who ends up paying for that?  The tax payers and guess what the tax payers are paying interest to the privatized banks.  So it's not really free money. 

When the world economy collapses a lot of people will end up being out of works and probably end up in the streets.



http://kahudes.net (http://kahudes.net)

http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/schiff-us-will-win-currency-war.php (http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/schiff-us-will-win-currency-war.php)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy4Zrv-UQGM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy4Zrv-UQGM#ws)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 24, 2014, 05:25:43 PM
I don't have time to read a 25 page PDF on this subject (or any other at present) but I think MikeTO raises a valid point. I have frequently mentioned divide and rule strategies implemented by those who pretend to govern us and there is no doubt in my mind that a gender war is perfectly in line with their plans. I'm not saying that the concerns of men and those of women should be minimized or disregarded, but the more we are able to find common ground and refrain from belligerence the less we follow this type of destructive agenda.

This is I see it.  Let feminist have what they want because in the end they will end up with nothing.  They might have money and more rights but most likely they will be single, lonely, angry.  I don't oppose feminists because they will be destroying themselves.  There's no need to men's right movement.  MRA will never win due to the lack of funds for lobbying and they don't have the balls to fight the government head on.  I don't mean physically of course.

There is a saying you can't fight evil with darkness.  Only with light can one beat evil.  Only with compassion can one defeat the world.  MRA will also destroy themselves with hate and anger.  If you doubt me read the articles by especially Paul Elam and the forum posts.   I did look at the men's rights movement for a short duration at avoiceformen.  They some very crude people.  I wasn't even talking about feminism yet they wish sickness and death upon me and used profanity like there's no tomorrow.

Only the truly good people will survive in the end.  The way I see it I wouldn't take either side, feminism and MRA will be defeating oneself.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on June 24, 2014, 06:03:04 PM
I don't have time to read a 25 page PDF on this subject (or any other at present) but I think MikeTO raises a valid point. I have frequently mentioned divide and rule strategies implemented by those who pretend to govern us and there is no doubt in my mind that a gender war is perfectly in line with their plans. I'm not saying that the concerns of men and those of women should be minimized or disregarded, but the more we are able to find common ground and refrain from belligerence the less we follow this type of destructive agenda.

This is I see it.  Let feminist have what they want because in the end they will end up with nothing.  They might have money and more rights but most likely they will be single, lonely, angry.  I don't oppose feminists because they will be destroying themselves.  There's no need to men's right movement.  MRA will never win due to the lack of funds for lobbying and they don't have the balls to fight the government head on.  I don't mean physically of course.

There is a saying you can't fight evil with darkness.  Only with light can one beat evil.  Only with compassion can one defeat the world.  MRA will also destroy themselves with hate and anger.  If you doubt me read the articles by especially Paul Elam and the forum posts.   I did look at the men's rights movement for a short duration at avoiceformen.  They some very crude people.  I wasn't even talking about feminism yet they wish sickness and death upon me and used profanity like there's no tomorrow.

Only the truly good people will survive in the end.  The way I see it I wouldn't take either side, feminism and MRA will be defeating oneself.

I really agree with you!  I keep saying, the militant MRA's sound just as insane and whiny and angry to me as the militant feminists.  If there are specific things we want to work on for equality for both sexes, let's talk about those specifically but why do we have to have movements of one or another gender, which leads to the BS of "gender wars".  We need men and women in our society to thrive and we NEED to stop fighting one another over who got dealt the worst hand by their sex chromosomes and start working together.  Like I said, if anyone wants to join my "no more whining" cult I'm working on how I can best brainwash people to not whine, LOL.  Anyone with kids who has managed to successfully eliminate whining please chime in!

Mind you I haven't watched the video, though I've watched some of her other videos and plenty of Stef's MRA rants.  I find the anger to be a little scary personally.  I guess I'm just not an angry person; i can't even manage to get angry at my ex BF despite his verbal abuse of me and basically discarding me as soon as he got into FDR, after trying to indoctrinate me and also calling me all sorts of names.  To me I'm just sorry for him and I just hope that this is a stepping stone for him into something better than where he was before FDR.  Anger just isn't usually a very useful emotion to me as it seems to only cause me harm not the person/group I'm angry at.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 24, 2014, 09:20:08 PM
One thing I know for sure a lot of feminists I have chatted with are very materialistic and really care about money more than anything else.  Many men married when there was warning signs of trouble.  The reason I never had a long term relationship or ever married was that I saw too many issues down the road.  People are unlikely to change, most people resist change.   

MRA should only blame themselves for the poor choices they made even when there was warning sings.  Even Stef gives off warning signs.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 24, 2014, 09:40:45 PM
Feminism is a depopulation (eugenics) program started by the government. 
[url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol311/211-236.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol311/211-236.pdf[/url])


So much disinformation, MikeTO, please: have mercy upon me. You're making me do unnecessary labour, and it is draining (read: help vampirism) to correct your errors. I'm going to resign from commenting on the handful of posts you made today, because I refuse to waste my time fixing them.

Just a friendly reminder: When it comes to assessing the validity of assertions, readers, do your own research! :)

I hate to be uncharitable, but I think MikeTO was counting on no one reading that pdf. If you actually read this dissertation, you'll notice that it is a history paper written by a Harvard student. Please read this:

Quote from: Mary Ziegler
Although not universal, many feminists supported these eugenic laws.
Context is important: in the early 1900s, eugenics was all the rage. People wanted to be a part of a Brave New World. You can read more about that history elsewhere of course :)

Quote from: Mary Ziegler
Ultimately, leading eugenic feminists could neither change the minds of a majority of the eugenic coalition nor resolve the contradictions inherent in their own eugenic theories. While they often argued that their reforms would be supported primarily as a means to achieve a eugenic end, each leader held on to the very kinds of rights and equality-based arguments that mainstream eugenicists rejected. This contradiction contributed significantly to the decline and disappearance of eugenic feminism in the early and mid-1930s.


That's right, feminist eugenics is dead, and failed to gain much influence. And we all know that eugenics was discredited years ago and that it was an ideological tool of white supremacists. Racism was quite rampant years ago.

It took a while for feminism to include people who weren't white women. If such a thing interests you, you are invited to read more about the historical development of feminism -- the first, second, and third waves (we are on the third now). But if you need me to state in only one word what feminism looks like today: it is diverse, and closely connected to fighting racism and queerphobia. Check out intersectionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality)

Finally, eugenics =/= depopulation.

Oh wait, there's more. If I'm not mistaken, in a followup post, MikeTO is casting feminists as not wanting to have sex and have kids? How funny!

MikeTO, I hope you understand that I cannot take seriously your assertions when you demonstrate such lack of diligence. Moreover, in your misrepresentation you are insulting the work of someone who was diligent, who probably took a very long time to write and gather all the sources. If it seems like I'm being harsh, that is because I admit I am using you as an example. I'm not holding the bar very high, I'm at least asking you to read what you linked so I don't have to go through the embarrassment of pointing this out. If it was an honest mistake, consider it a lesson learned. As for going through the effort of explaining this as I type on my phone, there will not be a second time, I assure you of that. But there could easily be, because of errors in your other posts, but I refuse to do all the work here. I'd rather go back to playing with computers.

I think Prodigal Son and LoverofFDRAddict's hearts are in the right place. But it irritates me to see disinfo being spread, and having people like them get deceived. Though ultimately, it's okay, as long as we value things like compassion -- I am aware that, as important as facts are, compassion is ever more important. And that lets me relax, because it sure would be a waste of time to go out and try to correct every false or unsupported assertion ever made...

I ask myself when I'll be done with these debates...it feels like the answer is 'soon'. That's all my brain wants to tell me -- seems I'm carried away on a silly distraction for some undefined period, though it hasn't been without reward...despite getting lambasted at every corner, I feel I emerge more brave, less intimidated, every time. It bothers momentarily, but then I rise above. And to be honest, this is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. MRAs don't need my help to look bad. I suppose I should move on to something more challenging, just waiting for the next wind of interest to catch flight... The hardest thing has been when somebody gets really mean.

We risin' up now, you gotta deal, you gotta cope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEddixS-UoU#t=297 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEddixS-UoU#t=297)

[Janelle Monae]
Yeah.. yeah, let's flip it
I don't think they understand what I'm trying to say
Haha, yeah, uh, I asked a question like this:

"Are we a lost generation of our people?
Add us to equations but they'll never make us equal
She who writes the movie owns the script and the sequel
So why ain't the stealing of my rights made illegal?
They keep us underground working hard for the greedy
But when it's time pay they turn around and call us needy
My crown too heavy like the Queen Nefertiti
Gimme back my pyramid, I'm trying to free Kansas City
Mixing masterminds like your name Bernie Grundman
Well I'mma keep leading like a young Harriet Tubman
You can take my wings but I'm still gonna fly
And even when you edit me the booty don't lie
Yeah, I'ma keep sangin', I'mma keep writin' songs
I'm tired of Marvin asking me "What's Going On?"
March to the streets 'cuz I'm willing and I'm able
Categorize me, I defy every label
And while you're selling dope, we're gonna keep selling hope
We rising up now, you gotta deal you gotta cope
Will you be electric sheep? Electric ladies, will you sleep?
Or will you preach?"
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 25, 2014, 01:44:01 AM
Eugenics is alive and well: a survey of genetic professionals around the world.
Wertz D.
Abstract
A survey of 2901 genetics professionals in 36 nations suggests that eugenic thought underlies their perceptions of the goals of genetics and that directiveness in counseling after prenatal diagnosis leads to individual decisions based on pessimistically biased information, especially in developing nations of Asia and Eastern Europe. The "non-directive counseling" found in English-speaking nations is an aberration from the rest of the world. Most geneticists, except in China, rejected government involvement in premarital testing or sterilization, but most also held a pessimistic view of persons with genetic disabilities. Individual, but not state-coerced, eugenics survives in much modern genetic practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15168676 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15168676)



Informed consent is a concept at the core of both liberal democracy and the ethical practice of medicine. That is just one reason why a new report that, between 2006 and 2010, at least 148 women were sterilized illegally in California prisons should deeply disturb us.

The report found the inmates were given tubal ligations without the prison administrators bothering to get the case by case authorization for the procedures, required by law, from a state board. The point of this requirement is to have state officials outside of the prison review whether a proposed sterilization is genuinely consensual. (At least one woman has complained that she was coerced by prison officials into having the procedure).

Judging from the comments being made on even many liberal internet sites regarding this story, it seems a refresher course in one of the darker sides of American history is in order (A typical reaction: “So ridiculous making this procedure so difficult. Every woman who walks in the door of a prison should be encouraged with times cuts and subsidies to get sterilized.”)

http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/10/eugenics-are-alive-and-well-in-the-united-states/ (http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/10/eugenics-are-alive-and-well-in-the-united-states/)

You took the bait. 
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 25, 2014, 07:25:00 AM
Stop baiting me MikeTO!

If eugenics is still slithering around in society, it has nothing to do with feminism, as indeed it is antithetical to it. You still have to bear the embarrassment of presenting an article that had Nothing to do with the claim that you accompanied with it.

As I alluded to earlier, as important as facts are, they don't change minds. Teaching values however does. I don't have time to read a million pubmed articles to verify whether or not I think women should have bodily autonomy, for example.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 25, 2014, 04:26:30 PM
Stop baiting me MikeTO!

If eugenics is still slithering around in society, it has nothing to do with feminism, as indeed it is antithetical to it. You still have to bear the embarrassment of presenting an article that had Nothing to do with the claim that you accompanied with it.

As I alluded to earlier, as important as facts are, they don't change minds. Teaching values however does. I don't have time to read a million pubmed articles to verify whether or not I think women should have bodily autonomy, for example.

You claimed eugenics no longer existed,  which was proved to be false.  You don't have time to verify facts but you claim in other posts one need to be scientific, so you choose ignorance over science?  Even with the facts you refuse to actually dig in deeper at at the facts, meaning you're just  wasting my and people's time.  When you claim science it's not science since you refuse to look at the professionally peer reviewed studies.

Thanks!
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 25, 2014, 04:56:51 PM
No, stop putting words in my mouth, you don't get it. You're even overlooking a whole lot of other crap I said. I'm saying that eugenics as a science has been officially discredited by scientists. I'm saying that there was a Eugenics Movement (tm) in the early 1900s that is now dead. I'm saying that if it's still slithering around in society, it isn't institutionalized the way it was in the early 1900s, and indeed most people would look at that and go, "hey that's wrong". I'm saying that feminism's fling with eugenics is a historical footnote. I'm saying that I don't need f*cking facts to believe that forced sterilization is morally wrong, and I would be batshit insane to call myself a feminist if I ever were to believe that. I'm saying that I don't need f*cking facts to believe that women should never ever ever have their bodies controlled by anyone, but themselves, and themselves only; to believe in bodily autonomy. To believe in that, you need to have empathy.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: rqxzme on June 25, 2014, 08:35:23 PM
I think this got pretty off-topic and flamey.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 25, 2014, 09:31:17 PM
I think this got pretty off-topic and flamey.

Sigh... You're right.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Prodigal son on June 25, 2014, 09:33:25 PM
I think this got pretty off-topic and flamey.

I have to concur, though I've seen much worse. I'm not sure the expression "run wild" is entirely well understood sometimes...
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 25, 2014, 10:38:16 PM
No, stop putting words in my mouth, you don't get it. You're even overlooking a whole lot of other crap I said. I'm saying that eugenics as a science has been officially discredited by scientists. I'm saying that there was a Eugenics Movement (tm) in the early 1900s that is now dead. I'm saying that if it's still slithering around in society, it isn't institutionalized the way it was in the early 1900s, and indeed most people would look at that and go, "hey that's wrong". I'm saying that feminism's fling with eugenics is a historical footnote. I'm saying that I don't need f*cking facts to believe that forced sterilization is morally wrong, and I would be batshit insane to call myself a feminist if I ever were to believe that. I'm saying that I don't need f*cking facts to believe that women should never ever ever have their bodies controlled by anyone, but themselves, and themselves only; to believe in bodily autonomy. To believe in that, you need to have empathy.

Just because scientist says so doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Why are birth rates dropping?  Eugentic isn't just about forced sterilization.  There is other ways to reduce population.  For example many men no longer want to get married or have children.  Clearly you aren't see the big picture. 

One thing is for certain only time will tell.  Truth usually comes out eventually.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 26, 2014, 06:38:58 AM

Clearly you have done enough research.  We are about to have economic collapse.  Giving people money?  Who ends up paying for that?  The tax payers and guess what the tax payers are paying interest to the privatized banks.  So it's not really free money. 

When the world economy collapses a lot of people will end up being out of works and probably end up in the streets.


What research I have to do when I personally know lots of people who survive entirely on benefits they get for children?
they do not work anything besides f*ck and pop children every year and benefits they get are way higher than payments from any job they could ever get.

That is not a way to reduce population.
This is feminists destroying economy.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 26, 2014, 05:09:39 PM

Clearly you have done enough research.  We are about to have economic collapse.  Giving people money?  Who ends up paying for that?  The tax payers and guess what the tax payers are paying interest to the privatized banks.  So it's not really free money. 

When the world economy collapses a lot of people will end up being out of works and probably end up in the streets.



What research I have to do when I personally know lots of people who survive entirely on benefits they get for children?
they do not work anything besides f*ck and pop children every year and benefits they get are way higher than payments from any job they could ever get.

That is not a way to reduce population.
This is feminists destroying economy.


When other men see this they no longer want to have kids or marriage.  The number of men wanting marriage has gone down but the number of women wanting to get married has gone up. 

With men avoiding having children and marriage and when you abortion you have a great population control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-smith/8-reasons-men-dont-want-t_b_3467778.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-smith/8-reasons-men-dont-want-t_b_3467778.html)


http://www.eastwestcenter.org/news-center/east-west-wire/declining-birth-rates-raising-concerns-in-asia (http://www.eastwestcenter.org/news-center/east-west-wire/declining-birth-rates-raising-concerns-in-asia)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 26, 2014, 06:54:13 PM
Quote
When other men see this they no longer want to have kids or marriage.  The number of men wanting marriage has gone down but the number of women wanting to get married has gone up.
And who cares about men?
as long as women are pooping children population will be increasing.
who needs marriage when daddy government pays you way more than any average man can ever earn. women do not want to marry, they want work horse and bag of money and they got it from the state so men became obsolete.
By the way those women are not even alone they have boyfriends they just do not marry because state is much better husband than man.

Anyway paying benefits for children is is not sensible population control.
So your conspiracy theory about population reduction is utter nonsense or alternatively secret organization which is attempting to do that is made of completely incompetent baboons.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 26, 2014, 07:16:32 PM
Quote
When other men see this they no longer want to have kids or marriage.  The number of men wanting marriage has gone down but the number of women wanting to get married has gone up.

And who cares about men?
as long as women are pooping children population will be increasing.
who needs marriage when daddy government pays you way more than any average man can ever earn. women do not want to marry, they want work horse and bag of money and they got it from the state so men became obsolete.
By the way those women are not even alone they have boyfriends they just do not marry because state is much better husband than man.

Anyway paying benefits for children is is not sensible population control.
So your conspiracy theory about population reduction is utter nonsense or alternatively secret organization which is attempting to do that is made of completely incompetent baboons.



Show me how much a woman gets from the state if they have children.  Even if a guy isn't married to a woman he is required to pay child support. 



Recently the Kansas Department for Children and Families ordered Marotta to pay support for the three-year-old girl that was born after Bauer and Schreiner requested welfare earlier this year.

The state is said to have forced the women to reveal Mr Marotta’s identity after pressuring them to reveal who the biological father of the child was. The state declared the contract relinquishing him of financial responsibility void because the insemination was not performed by a certified doctor.
his is just one chilling example of how state interference into the private lives of people can have serious damaging consequences. The state basically forced Bauer and Schreiner to divulge information that was assumed to be safe and confidential, by threatening the couple.

But what if the couple did not know the identity of their donor? Would the state have refused medical coverage for their child then? What if they were a heterosexual couple? Would that have made any difference in the state’s decision? I tend to think that it would have been a much different situation had the couple not been a lesbian couple.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/sperm-donor-forced-to-pay-child-support/ (http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/sperm-donor-forced-to-pay-child-support/)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 26, 2014, 08:10:49 PM
what you described here is irrelevant, Of course state will try to save money and extract it from someone else.
this is nothing different than tax money except that tax is placed on single man.

I live in Europe and here I know few women who get enormous sums of money for their children

while listening to Tom Leikis show from USA on you tube I noticed that US is more or less same situation. I don't know how US laws work on that regard but at least some people say that get plenty of money from that state.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 26, 2014, 08:37:10 PM
what you described here is irrelevant, Of course state will try to save money and extract it from someone else.
this is nothing different than tax money except that tax is placed on single man.

I live in Europe and here I know few women who get enormous sums of money for their children

while listening to Tom Leikis show from USA on you tube I noticed that US is more or less same situation. I don't know how US laws work on that regard but at least some people say that get plenty of money from that state.

You don't get it scares men from having children.  Don't you see it?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 27, 2014, 05:10:27 AM
Quote
You don't get it scares men from having children.  Don't you see it?
Most men are too stupid to be scared, they just don't know those laws and dangers.
Those who are smart have way more important reasons not to marry than those dangers.
People do not want children for many reasons and I am sure idea that "in case of divorce i will have to pay child support" reason is not the top one.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 27, 2014, 05:46:09 AM
Quote
You don't get it scares men from having children.  Don't you see it?
Most men are too stupid to be scared, they just don't know those laws and dangers.
Those who are smart have way more important reasons not to marry than those dangers.
People do not want children for many reasons and I am sure idea that "in case of divorce i will have to pay child support" reason is not the top one.


You still don't get it, child support to the extreme leaving a lot of men either homeless and broke to the extreme.  Of course  there is other reasons I haven't talked about.

I don't know what goes in Europe in USA and Canada it's a reality.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 27, 2014, 11:13:06 AM
You still don't get it, child support to the extreme leaving a lot of men either homeless and broke to the extreme.  Of course  there is other reasons I haven't talked about.

I don't know what goes in Europe in USA and Canada it's a reality.

It is pretty much same everywhere.
while child support is complete disaster for man, it is equal disaster for woman. So  it would be unfair if father can just dump his child leaving woman alone to suffer.
Woman with child is also completely ruined and equivalent to homeless man because she has almost no chance to marry again or advance in her carrier.

in conclusion child support laws are not that bad as you describe, only problem is usual abuse when woman has more rights to manipulate system.
I guess it would be fair if man had to pay fixed sum of money independent from his income. that would prevent women from abusing system when  they trick some rich guy and enjoy great life later.




Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 30, 2014, 07:19:51 AM
You still don't get it, child support to the extreme leaving a lot of men either homeless and broke to the extreme.  Of course  there is other reasons I haven't talked about.

I don't know what goes in Europe in USA and Canada it's a reality.

It is pretty much same everywhere.
while child support is complete disaster for man, it is equal disaster for woman. So  it would be unfair if father can just dump his child leaving woman alone to suffer.
Woman with child is also completely ruined and equivalent to homeless man because she has almost no chance to marry again or advance in her carrier.

in conclusion child support laws are not that bad as you describe, only problem is usual abuse when woman has more rights to manipulate system.
I guess it would be fair if man had to pay fixed sum of money independent from his income. that would prevent women from abusing system when  they trick some rich guy and enjoy great life later.

Unless a woman is stay at home mom she should be fine. If men can live next to nothing even else can.  Look at Greece.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 30, 2014, 08:07:27 AM
Unless a woman is stay at home mom she should be fine. If men can live next to nothing even else can.  Look at Greece.

You have no clue what does it mean to raise child.

Of course if woman is alone she will be fine, but if she has child she cant work much because she needs to be at home, and she cant leave her child in some child care center because that is insanely expensive, she cant even date other men, her life is pretty much ruined.

So why do you suggest that man should get free out of that mess while woman is left completely ruined?

you can live next to nothing when you are alone, in the worst case you can sleep on the street and eat from the trash cans, however if you have child you cant live like that.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 30, 2014, 08:19:25 AM
Unless a woman is stay at home mom she should be fine. If men can live next to nothing even else can.  Look at Greece.

You have no clue what does it mean to raise child.

Of course if woman is alone she will be fine, but if she has child she cant work much because she needs to be at home, and she cant leave her child in some child care center because that is insanely expensive, she cant even date other men, her life is pretty much ruined.

So why do you suggest that man should get free out of that mess while woman is left completely ruined?

you can live next to nothing when you are alone, in the worst case you can sleep on the street and eat from the trash cans, however if you have child you cant live like that.


We have this thing called day care.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 30, 2014, 08:26:47 AM
Women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and considering 70% of women innate divorce who's problem is that?  Unless there's violence involved women should think twice of splitting up.

If women had higher standards and don't divorce out on a whim many men wouldn't need to contribute to child support.  In divorce there's split of assets anyways, unless there's massive debt there will be enough to live on.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 30, 2014, 09:50:02 AM
Quote
We have this thing called day care.
that thing is not free and very expensive, someone needs to pay for day care.

Quote
Women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage .
this is outdated idea, modem medicine gives you lots of options to abort or avoid pregnancy safely and at low cost. Sex is not an issue anymore. Every child who is born is choice.

Quote
and considering 70% of women innate divorce who's problem is that?  Unless there's violence involved women should think twice of splitting up
This is entirely different issue, because some women simply abuse system, to enslave men against their will.

There are legitimate reasons for divorce, however I believe that in any other case, divorce cannot be initiated by woman or man alone, both must agree and split their assets and negotiate child support and if any of them refuses divorce must be impossible.

If you simply free men from child support it will be equally unfair towards women, because man will be allowed to dump woman without significant penalty just like woman is allowed to dump man today.

I think we should not behave like those selfish feminists and think  about issues of both sides.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 30, 2014, 12:22:07 PM
Quote
We have this thing called day care.
that thing is not free and very expensive, someone needs to pay for day care.

Quote
Women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage .
this is outdated idea, modem medicine gives you lots of options to abort or avoid pregnancy safely and at low cost. Sex is not an issue anymore. Every child who is born is choice.

Quote
and considering 70% of women innate divorce who's problem is that?  Unless there's violence involved women should think twice of splitting up
This is entirely different issue, because some women simply abuse system, to enslave men against their will.

There are legitimate reasons for divorce, however I believe that in any other case, divorce cannot be initiated by woman or man alone, both must agree and split their assets and negotiate child support and if any of them refuses divorce must be impossible.

If you simply free men from child support it will be equally unfair towards women, because man will be allowed to dump woman without significant penalty just like woman is allowed to dump man today.

I think we should not behave like those selfish feminists and think  about issues of both sides.

The problem is courts isn't fair.  A woman can ask for more and usually get it.  Most men are happy to provide child support but when some get greedy and the courts allow it to happen.  I don't know European laws but here in Canada a woman can clean you out with child support.  In the end if the guy can barely afford to pay his bills he will be forced to quit job, so she will be left without anymore money in the first place.  I have heard of few cases like this.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on June 30, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
Women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and considering 70% of women innate divorce who's problem is that?  Unless there's violence involved women should think twice of splitting up.

If women had higher standards and don't divorce out on a whim many men wouldn't need to contribute to child support.  In divorce there's split of assets anyways, unless there's massive debt there will be enough to live on.

I don't know if you actually thought about what you wrote before you wrote it, but that first sentence is very sexist.  If WOMEN, shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, then MEN should also stop having sex outside of marriage, unless they are gay and you're not anti sex per say just against all forms of possibly procreative sex.  Not to mention this is a very 1950's attitude.

Personally, the thing I find the most disgusting about FDR is the way that somehow he has decided women are to blame for everything wrong with society.  Bad men exist because some woman made a baby with a bad man who passed that onto his kid.  Child abuse by the man is still somehow the woman's fault for choosing the abusive man.  But somehow men get the pass when they chose a woman who manipulates them and gets pregnant on purpose without consent or who has a kid with someone else but tells the guy with more $ that it's his baby.  Why are women responsible for who they chose to have sex with but men are off the hook somehow?  Yes, he tells men who call in to choose better and counsels them how to find a quality women, but only after basically mocking women in general for a long time without ever qualifying his statements with "some women", which puts me in the same box as those manipulative bit$hes.  Men should be held just as accountable for their choice of women as men are held accountable for their choice of men.  Anything else is not EQUALITY.

Having just realized I had became a victim of verbal abuse within my relationship that just ended, I think there can be many forms of abuse other than physical that can be very damaging to families.  Not only that, but I had NO IDEA he was such an awful person deep down since he was actually quite kind and sweet and caring for much of the first year of our relationship, which is why I fell in love with him.  I'm still not really sure who he really is and I kinda hope it's just the FDR cult and not that he's really a mean person.  I don't like the idea that I fell so deeply in love with a meanie and had no idea.  It is just as bad for a child to be raised in a household with one parent constantly attacking the other verbally as for the child to witness physical abuse.  I was miserable in that relationship once it became verbally abusive and I would NEVER raise a chid in that environment.

Day care is indeed incredibly expensive in the USA, though in other countries with more socialized stuff it is often subsidized to be much more reasonable, but the anarchy folks won't like that.  Where I live the cost of day care is more than the cost of my mortgage!  Not to mention that I don't really think it's best for children to put them into daycare right away, though good quality daycare I think is good for children once they are toddlers and can learn to socialize with other children.  In hunter gatherer tribes once kids are old enough they spend more of their time with other children than with their parents.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 30, 2014, 03:31:47 PM
Women shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and considering 70% of women innate divorce who's problem is that?  Unless there's violence involved women should think twice of splitting up.

If women had higher standards and don't divorce out on a whim many men wouldn't need to contribute to child support.  In divorce there's split of assets anyways, unless there's massive debt there will be enough to live on.

I don't know if you actually thought about what you wrote before you wrote it, but that first sentence is very sexist.  If WOMEN, shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, then MEN should also stop having sex outside of marriage, unless they are gay and you're not anti sex per say just against all forms of possibly procreative sex.  Not to mention this is a very 1950's attitude.



It's just as sexist to expect men to approach women to ask for dates and pay for dates.  Also men need to ask permission to have sex.  Men are told consent is needed before having sex.
Is it sexist to say my choice my body?  Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?  Not that I agree with abortion.
It's also sexist that claiming men are violent ones in domestic violence but no that's not even mention with feminist when almost half the women initiate the violence with violence.
It boggles my mind people say someone is sexist when their own gender is sexist also.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 30, 2014, 07:02:44 PM
Quote
I don't know if you actually thought about what you wrote before you wrote it, but that first sentence is very sexist.
While I partially agree with you here, but we must still take into account fact that woman is one which does choosing. Man cannot chose he can only approach women one by one and hope that one of them will agree to have sex with him.
If women were approaching men and man had power to accept of deny offer you could blame men for bad choices, but it is not how everything works.

same logic applies to everything else:
Quote
Child abuse by the man is still somehow the woman's fault for choosing the abusive man.
this is because woman again does choosing: abusive man just probes all women one by one until someone takes him.
If you rejected some good man and went into relationship with some meanie it is completely right and fair if you get what you deserve.
Of course that does not make abuser innocent, but  you are one who made choice so you are responsible.
men do not go of the hook because abuser also gets what he deserves  and he is accountable for his abusive behavior, while victim gets what she deserves for her choice.

Quote
Men should be held just as accountable for their choice of women as men are held accountable for their choice of men.  Anything else is not EQUALITY.
man cannot be accountable for choice of women because he has no ability to choose woman.
The best man can do is to manipulate women into choosing him.

Also I suggest to look into this from other side which explains this hatred towards women:
Remember your behavior in school when you were crazy for cool guys while geeky and unpopular guys were completely ignored and mocked.
They remember everything and now when you are burnt with your relationship they all celebrate your failure as sweet revenge which you deserve for their rejection. 
when you are young boy all girls are crazy for older men with money and power none of girls have interest in boy who has no money looks silly and gets beaten by bullies.
But remember that all those boys will grow up and very likely they will become successful and powerful people who hate women with all their hearts.

If you want to do something about misogyny and misanthropy in general i think you should start with little boys and girls to make sure that no one is being ignored and neglected.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 30, 2014, 07:18:33 PM
MikeTO asked: "Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?"

Because it's not your body.

Transmen can sometimes retain the ability to have children, in which case that man has a right to decide going through abortion. Because it is his body.

If you have an abortion, I fully support your choice. But I don't support your desire to control other people's choices over their own body.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on June 30, 2014, 07:35:48 PM
News in America:

The Supreme Court just sided with right-wing ideologues and gutted women’s right to birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html)

This is devastating news for the 51% of Black women ages 18-35 for whom high cost has made it difficult to maintain consistent access to birth control. Now health decisions, for women who work at certain private corporations, are left to our bosses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vanessa-cullins/why-free-birth-control-wi_1_b_916702.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vanessa-cullins/why-free-birth-control-wi_1_b_916702.html)

How is capitalism supposed to solve this problem?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 30, 2014, 08:19:16 PM
News in America:

The Supreme Court just sided with right-wing ideologues and gutted women’s right to birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html[/url])

This is devastating news for the 51% of Black women ages 18-35 for whom high cost has made it difficult to maintain consistent access to birth control. Now health decisions, for women who work at certain private corporations, are left to our bosses.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vanessa-cullins/why-free-birth-control-wi_1_b_916702.html[/url] ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vanessa-cullins/why-free-birth-control-wi_1_b_916702.html[/url])

How is capitalism supposed to solve this problem?


You mean how men are supposed to solve that problem?
If you care about those women so much how about paying for their needs from your own pocket?
In any case someone will have to pay for that and i am definitely not paying.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on June 30, 2014, 08:23:59 PM
MikeTO asked: "Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?"

Because it's not your body.

Transmen can sometimes retain the ability to have children, in which case that man has a right to decide going through abortion. Because it is his body.

If you have an abortion, I fully support your choice. But I don't support your desire to control other people's choices over their own body.

of course that is just great woman is one who will give births and man will have to pay for her decision all his remaining life.
I guess you do not see any problems with that, because who cares that this man has his life ruined forever, because woman decides to ruin life's for herself, man and future child.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on June 30, 2014, 10:26:33 PM
MikeTO asked: "Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?"

Because it's not your body.

Transmen can sometimes retain the ability to have children, in which case that man has a right to decide going through abortion. Because it is his body.

If you have an abortion, I fully support your choice. But I don't support your desire to control other people's choices over their own body.

of course that is just great woman is one who will give births and man will have to pay for her decision all his remaining life.
I guess you do not see any problems with that, because who cares that this man has his life ruined forever, because woman decides to ruin life's for herself, man and future child.

I remember a few male feminist like him until it bite them on the a$$.  Then it was total shocked and things didn't go what he thought.
Also there is no male birth control pill, in fact drug companies aren't interested in marketing one..

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: LoverofFDRAddict on July 01, 2014, 01:17:05 PM
MikeTO asked: "Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?"

Because it's not your body.

Transmen can sometimes retain the ability to have children, in which case that man has a right to decide going through abortion. Because it is his body.

If you have an abortion, I fully support your choice. But I don't support your desire to control other people's choices over their own body.


of course that is just great woman is one who will give births and man will have to pay for her decision all his remaining life.
I guess you do not see any problems with that, because who cares that this man has his life ruined forever, because woman decides to ruin life's for herself, man and future child.


I remember a few male feminist like him until it bite them on the a$$.  Then it was total shocked and things didn't go what he thought.
Also there is no male birth control pill, in fact drug companies aren't interested in marketing one..




http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/supplements/male-birth-control-pill-in-the-making (http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/supplements/male-birth-control-pill-in-the-making)

If a man doesn't want to make a baby in a woman then he ought not put his sperm into her vagina.  It's not rocket science, my 7 year old nephew knows how this stuff works already.  We all need to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, males and females, when it comes to procreation.
Quote
I don't know if you actually thought about what you wrote before you wrote it, but that first sentence is very sexist.

While I partially agree with you here, but we must still take into account fact that woman is one which does choosing. Man cannot chose he can only approach women one by one and hope that one of them will agree to have sex with him.
If women were approaching men and man had power to accept of deny offer you could blame men for bad choices, but it is not how everything works.

same logic applies to everything else:
Quote
Child abuse by the man is still somehow the woman's fault for choosing the abusive man.

this is because woman again does choosing: abusive man just probes all women one by one until someone takes him.
If you rejected some good man and went into relationship with some meanie it is completely right and fair if you get what you deserve.
Of course that does not make abuser innocent, but  you are one who made choice so you are responsible.
men do not go of the hook because abuser also gets what he deserves  and he is accountable for his abusive behavior, while victim gets what she deserves for her choice.

No one DESERVES to be treated the way my ex treated me.  Unless we get to the point where we can do a brain scan and discover ahead of time the narcissists and sociopaths, those people are very very hard to spot because they can act like normal people.  I'm still not sure if my ex was always a narcissist or just became one due to FDR, but if he was always one he hid it very well.  He convinced me that he was a kind, loving, compassionate, caring person.  I'm hoping I can learn how to spot the type ahead of time so this does't happen again, and I'm also aware that narcissism and sociopathy are rare so hopefully the likelihood of ending up with another is low.  But that doesn't mean I deserve to be treated the way he has treated me.  No one deserves that and no one needs to stay and put up with that when they only agreed to the relationship under completely different behavior by the other party. 
Quote
Quote
Men should be held just as accountable for their choice of women as men are held accountable for their choice of men.  Anything else is not EQUALITY.

man cannot be accountable for choice of women because he has no ability to choose woman.
The best man can do is to manipulate women into choosing him.

Also I suggest to look into this from other side which explains this hatred towards women:
Remember your behavior in school when you were crazy for cool guys while geeky and unpopular guys were completely ignored and mocked.
They remember everything and now when you are burnt with your relationship they all celebrate your failure as sweet revenge which you deserve for their rejection. 
when you are young boy all girls are crazy for older men with money and power none of girls have interest in boy who has no money looks silly and gets beaten by bullies.
But remember that all those boys will grow up and very likely they will become successful and powerful people who hate women with all their hearts.

If you want to do something about misogyny and misanthropy in general i think you should start with little boys and girls to make sure that no one is being ignored and neglected.
[/quote]

No one other than yourself can teach you to love yourself.  Being loved back by a women won't be enough to make you learn to love yourself.  Trying to shift the blame to women to give these men who feel rejected back their self esteem is not only ineffective but probably more harm than good.  Internal confidence and acceptance of one's self is much more resilient and meaningful than external validation. 

Secondly, if you think women get to chose men you are very mistaken.  I only got to chose from the men who approached me when i was younger and those men were not always the best options, though at this point I'm gonna go for what I want and not give a hoot what the stupid rules are.  I couldn't really figure out what I was doing wrong when i was younger.  I think the key was confidence.  I wasn't confident then and if you aren't confident it's hard for others to love you.  I truly believe it's impossible to have a healthy loving relationship with another person if you don't really truly love yourself.  I have seen that play out in my life many times.

Thirdly, you have no idea who I dated when I was younger.  I usually dated the nerds because they weren't cocky and could respect my intellect and treated me with kindness and valued me.  My FDR ex BF was the least nerdy guy I ever dated and look how he ended up treating me?  He's had a lot more dating and sexual experiences than me so he really can't blame being a misogynist on being rejected by women.  But being a nerd and then taking that positive energy of curiosity and intellect and turning it into misogyny isn't going to help your love life.  Anger is not an effective emotion to be perfectly honest and it's not sexy, at least not to me.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 01, 2014, 05:59:54 PM
Quote
No one DESERVES to be treated the way my ex treated me.

to make it clear I do not judge anyone here. I just try to discuss reasons and methods how to avoid such situations.

We are not talking about your situation specifically you are just representative of women who happened to get in such situation.

"No one other than yourself can teach you to love yourself.  Being loved back by a women won't be enough to make you learn to love yourself.  Trying to shift the blame to women to give these men who feel rejected back their self esteem is not only ineffective but probably more harm than good.  Internal confidence and acceptance of one's self is much more resilient and meaningful than external validation. "

love is completely irrelevant here, all what young boys and most grown up men care about is sex.
and it is not exactly rejection of love but fact that cool guys get to sleep with all girls around while those nerds stay virgins until their thirties.

So considering your further claims what you say is right but is entirely irrelevant from male perspective, because men are not interested in love they are interested in sex.  To validate himself man need to bring you to his bed, not make you fall in love. Sex for men is like food.

if sex is denied to man results are just same as if you deny other physiological needs.
man feels incompetent to obtain important resource.
and it is is extremely frustrating when "bad boys" can get unlimited access to that resource.

Here are only my speculations because I don't know how it was for you:
Considering those nerds you dated while at school did they managed to bring you in bed?
How much you got sexually aroused from their respect and kindness? I am pretty sure when your boyfriend was helping you with your homework there were no  thoughts in you head "I feel so hot, take me now"
I suppose, you basically rejected most of those nerds and they simply felt used and discarded, because they did not got what they were working for.

Can you comment something about fact that all expert womanizers unanimously state that If you want to have sex with woman you cant treat her nicely. You MUST treat her like shit even if you don't want to. even if she complains you must simply treat her like dog dominating her completely.
Any sign of kindness will immediately kill your chances to bring her to your bed.
I am completely not in love with that situation. I do not want to treat women like dogs neither most of the men want, but unfortunately you are loser if you are nice guy.

do you have any suggestions for those men how they are supposed to arouse woman without disrespecting her?


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: phlogiston on July 01, 2014, 11:18:41 PM
      "but unfortunately you are loser if you are nice guy."

What is a "Winner"? You know this means competition. In this case it implies the male pitted vs. the female. Why can't it be a team sport? Our tribe has most healthy babies instead of; in my tribe I have more healthy babies than you.
 In the past those who raped, pillaged, killed, and forced people to do their bidding won. That was a competition. Now those who do that are pitted against others who align by not doing any of those things. "All for 1 and 1 for all"

 I might want sex but I won't troll for it. I get it or not and am not a loser. Loser is a cultural term a cat would never feel that because of the cultural nothingness. Define yourself in terms of others and all sorts of things spring up. Let your goals be others private parts and you are not about you. Steph is right. UPB.
 Either we all be individuals for our selves or we all be a community. Saudi Arabia says the community is only men. It exists because of oil and American intervention.

 Where did I post about individuals? lost in my drunk stupor again.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 02, 2014, 03:03:07 AM
Lol arrrgh Omega you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you there are plenty of mature men whose lives don't revolve around getting laid!
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 02, 2014, 05:41:03 AM
Quote
What is a "Winner"? You know this means competition.
This is just figure of speech to describe how you fell and what other think about you.

Quote
In the past those who raped, pillaged, killed, and forced people to do their bidding won. That was a competition. Now those who do that are pitted against others who align by not doing any of those things. "All for 1 and 1 for all"

And they still win.

Quote
I might want sex but I won't troll for it. I get it or not and am not a loser.
sex is resource and we men compete for that resource those who get it are winners those who don't are losers.

Quote
Loser is a cultural term a cat would never feel that because of the cultural nothingness. Define yourself in terms of others and all sorts of things spring up. Let your goals be others private parts and you are not about you.
Since I am man, nature already gave me life goal.  Bring as many women as possible to my bed.
Culture does not matter here. Even if all world cultures do all they can to suppress nature it is still here and it is not going away.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 02, 2014, 05:47:26 AM
Lol arrrgh Omega you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you there are plenty of mature men whose lives don't revolve around getting laid!

Who says otherwise? we have like 3 billion men on earth you can find all kinds of people around.

And I was not talking about MATURE men I was talking exactly about immature boys in their puberty and early adulthood when entire life revolves about getting laid and nothing more.
If you believe otherwise you are living in delusion which is reason of your frustration and feminism. You just refuse to accept realty.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 02, 2014, 12:53:03 PM
So then, Omega, wouldn't that mean that you should tell these men to grow up rather than make a whole political movement out of immaturity?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 02, 2014, 02:26:54 PM
So then, Omega, wouldn't that mean that you should tell these men to grow up rather than make a whole political movement out of immaturity?

What exactly is the point to grow up especially at age of 17-25 or ever what benefits you get from growing up and what exactly does it mean?

do you suggest that mature man should settle with wrinkled old hag instead of of enjoying something he had no ability to enjoy when he was young?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 12:32:00 AM
So then, Omega, wouldn't that mean that you should tell these men to grow up rather than make a whole political movement out of immaturity?

What exactly is the point to grow up especially at age of 17-25 or ever what benefits you get from growing up and what exactly does it mean?

do you suggest that mature man should settle with wrinkled old hag instead of of enjoying something he had no ability to enjoy when he was young?

I suggest that young men learn to detach their egos from the act of getting laid. To have self esteem inspite of it. As Lowkey said,

If you don't respect yourself, no one's gonna respect you
If you don't love yourself, no one's gonna love you

It's a special kind of love, a very special kind of love,
A very very special kind of love

Second verse go's out to the males of the species
The ones who've got different women for each week
What's next? I'll break down the player complex
And tell you what the motive behind it is cause it's not sex
Most people at some point got their heart broke
Misery loves company some people just can't cope
A man that hops beds cause he's scared to sleep alone
Is the same as a loose women that can't keep 'em closed
Your both in the same boat, this is what you need to know
A man gets called a player, as for the woman she's a hoe
The truth is they both are insecure people trying to mend their broke hearts
If you brag that you've slept with thousands of girls
All that tells me is that you don't value yourself
You'll only be truly loved by someone else, when you learn to respect and to love yourself
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 03, 2014, 04:44:58 AM
Quote
I suggest that young men learn to detach their egos from the act of getting laid. To have self esteem inspite of it. As Lowkey said,

It has nothing to do with self esteem. you can have enormous confidence and self esteem going trough the roof and still you wont get laid.
as I described, problem is that if you treat women nicely they simply sexually ignore you.

Can you finally understand that if man is buying dinner for you and saying nice wolds he is doing that only to take you to his bed? He will take great care to make you think that he does not care about sex, but that is only thing in his head all the time.

When man is not interested in sex and still does same things he is probably looking for incubator to impregnate, maid to clean his home or punching bag.

sexual desire is most innocent thing you can expect from man.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 08:06:15 AM
Quote
I suggest that young men learn to detach their egos from the act of getting laid. To have self esteem inspite of it. As Lowkey said,

It has nothing to do with self esteem. you can have enormous confidence and self esteem going trough the roof and still you wont get laid.
as I described, problem is that if you treat women nicely they simply sexually ignore you.

Can you finally understand that if man is buying dinner for you and saying nice wolds he is doing that only to take you to his bed? He will take great care to make you think that he does not care about sex, but that is only thing in his head all the time.

When man is not interested in sex and still does same things he is probably looking for incubator to impregnate, maid to clean his home or punching bag.

sexual desire is most innocent thing you can expect from man.

Stop saying 'you', you don't know my gender or sexual orientation and that is very awkward.

The idea is to be okay with the reality that 'you' aren't going to get laid all the time, and that doesn't make 'you' worthless.

Just stop acting like you can read the minds of every man on this earth, even most of them. Maybe what you say is indicative about YOU, but you are not a psychic clone of every member of your gender.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 03, 2014, 08:08:37 AM
Quote
I suggest that young men learn to detach their egos from the act of getting laid. To have self esteem inspite of it. As Lowkey said,

It has nothing to do with self esteem. you can have enormous confidence and self esteem going trough the roof and still you wont get laid.
as I described, problem is that if you treat women nicely they simply sexually ignore you.

Can you finally understand that if man is buying dinner for you and saying nice wolds he is doing that only to take you to his bed? He will take great care to make you think that he does not care about sex, but that is only thing in his head all the time.

When man is not interested in sex and still does same things he is probably looking for incubator to impregnate, maid to clean his home or punching bag.

sexual desire is most innocent thing you can expect from man.

Stop saying 'you', you don't know my gender or sexual orientation and that is very awkward.

The idea is to be okay with the reality that 'you' aren't going to get laid all the time, and that doesn't make 'you' worthless.

Just stop acting like you can read the minds of every man on this earth, even most of them. Maybe what you say is indicative about YOU, but you are not a psychic clone of every member of your gender.

Actually you claimed to be male, unless you lied I will assume you're male.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 03, 2014, 08:44:53 AM
MikeTO asked: "Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?"

Because it's not your body.

Transmen can sometimes retain the ability to have children, in which case that man has a right to decide going through abortion. Because it is his body.

If you have an abortion, I fully support your choice. But I don't support your desire to control other people's choices over their own body.

Yes but that's not equality that feminism claim they want because with equality both sex need to have a say in it. 
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 03, 2014, 09:01:34 AM
John Amory, professor of medicine at the University of Washington:
There was a male birth control.  Just because it's being developed by scientists doesn't mean it's being market.  Obviously you have done research about men sperm production.
Also I haven't had sex in 14 years.  I'm not interested in having children.  I don't want to end up with a woman who I don't love or want a relationship with.



More science and biology than social. Before the pill was available, men were the biggest focus of contraception through the use of condoms.

There are two main differences between men and women that make contracepting men more challenging:
1) Men make 1,000 sperm every second from puberty to death whereas women make one egg a month. Suppressing ovulation has proven easier than suppressing sperm production
2) Women have a period during their reproductive life when they are not fertile, —pregnancy. During pregnancy, high levels of progesterone suppress ovulation preventing a competing pregnancy. The female pill mimics pregnancy by administered progesterone to women, thereby preventing ovulation. Men don't have an analogous period of temporary infertility.

THE VERDICT: It is more scientifically challenging to make a contraceptive pill for men than for women—but not impossible. The biological mechanism for such a contraceptive is well established. The lack of an actual product that you can buy seems to be due to a lack of investment from pharmaceutical companies, who have not thus far been willing to spend the huge amounts of money that would be necessary to create, test, and market a male pill, when a perfectly good female pill already exists. A male birth control may certainly come one day, but that day is years away. When it does come, lots of men will probably give it a try.

http://gawker.com/5991509/where-the-hell-is-the-male-birth-control-pill (http://gawker.com/5991509/where-the-hell-is-the-male-birth-control-pill)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 03, 2014, 09:13:16 AM
Stop saying 'you', you don't know my gender or sexual orientation and that is very awkward.
I absolutely do not care about your gender or sexual orientation
According to rules of this forum we are discussion ideas not our real personality, so when i say "You" I refer to you as to representative of whomever you represent at the moment.
exactly as you did here:
Quote
The idea is to be okay with the reality that 'you' aren't going to get laid all the time, and that doesn't make 'you' worthless.

It has nothing to do with being worthless.  It is injustice when nice men see that "bad boys" get rewarded while their efforts are pretty much futile.
In the end women simply lose respect as beings capable to make good judgments.

When such woman gets pregnant or abused nice guy can only say: why you chose that guy instead of me when you were 15? 


Actually you claimed to be male, unless you lied I will assume you're male.

Considering how "he " speaks and what he says he must be transgender.
there is too many references to transgender people in his texts also nobody would bring out sexual orientation along with gender unless there is mismatch.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 03, 2014, 09:22:22 AM
THE VERDICT: It is more scientifically challenging to make a contraceptive pill for men than for women—but not impossible. [/url]


contraception for men does exist and it is pretty efficient and even has less side effects than birth controll pils.  It is pretty old invention formely known as RISUG®, which was ignored for long time
http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/ (http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/)
the main problem seems o be unpredictability of results, because it can randomly fail,
but many people are suspecting feminist conspiracy, as usual.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 03, 2014, 11:34:49 AM
It's still in clinical trails it doesn't mean it will be available to the public.  Personally I rather not have sex at all to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

Nice try though.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 11:57:39 AM
Quote
I suggest that young men learn to detach their egos from the act of getting laid. To have self esteem inspite of it. As Lowkey said,

It has nothing to do with self esteem. you can have enormous confidence and self esteem going trough the roof and still you wont get laid.
as I described, problem is that if you treat women nicely they simply sexually ignore you.

Can you finally understand that if man is buying dinner for you and saying nice wolds he is doing that only to take you to his bed? He will take great care to make you think that he does not care about sex, but that is only thing in his head all the time.

When man is not interested in sex and still does same things he is probably looking for incubator to impregnate, maid to clean his home or punching bag.

sexual desire is most innocent thing you can expect from man.

Stop saying 'you', you don't know my gender or sexual orientation and that is very awkward.

The idea is to be okay with the reality that 'you' aren't going to get laid all the time, and that doesn't make 'you' worthless.

Just stop acting like you can read the minds of every man on this earth, even most of them. Maybe what you say is indicative about YOU, but you are not a psychic clone of every member of your gender.

Actually you claimed to be male, unless you lied I will assume you're male.

MikeTO I never claimed to be male or anything at all. I only laugh at you all constantly attempting to gender me, like it means anything or has any relevance.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 12:02:12 PM
MikeTO asked: "Why don't men have a say in abortion or not?"

Because it's not your body.

Transmen can sometimes retain the ability to have children, in which case that man has a right to decide going through abortion. Because it is his body.

If you have an abortion, I fully support your choice. But I don't support your desire to control other people's choices over their own body.

Yes but that's not equality that feminism claim they want because with equality both sex need to have a say in it.

Everyone owns their own body, and that is equal. No democracy here, everyone needs their Personal Space to have full control over. You are not entitled to invade people's personal space!
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 12:06:34 PM
Stop saying 'you', you don't know my gender or sexual orientation and that is very awkward.
I absolutely do not care about your gender or sexual orientation
According to rules of this forum we are discussion ideas not our real personality, so when i say "You" I refer to you as to representative of whomever you represent at the moment.
exactly as you did here:
Quote
The idea is to be okay with the reality that 'you' aren't going to get laid all the time, and that doesn't make 'you' worthless.

It has nothing to do with being worthless.  It is injustice when nice men see that "bad boys" get rewarded while their efforts are pretty much futile.
In the end women simply lose respect as beings capable to make good judgments.

When such woman gets pregnant or abused nice guy can only say: why you chose that guy instead of me when you were 15? 


Actually you claimed to be male, unless you lied I will assume you're male.

Considering how "he " speaks and what he says he must be transgender.
there is too many references to transgender people in his texts also nobody would bring out sexual orientation along with gender unless there is mismatch.

Because of patriarchy, that is why the 'bad guys' win! So end patriarchy and you're good.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 12:14:58 PM
THE VERDICT: It is more scientifically challenging to make a contraceptive pill for men than for women—but not impossible. [/url]


contraception for men does exist and it is pretty efficient and even has less side effects than birth controll pils.  It is pretty old invention formely known as RISUG®, which was ignored for long time
[url]http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/[/url] ([url]http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/[/url])
the main problem seems o be unpredictability of results, because it can randomly fail,
but many people are suspecting feminist conspiracy, as usual.


Lol feminist conspiracy to sabotage male birth control? lololol
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 03, 2014, 12:22:37 PM
Because of patriarchy, that is why the 'bad guys' win! So end patriarchy and you're good.

Is there anything in the world that is not related to patriarchy? I guess patriarchy is also responsible for global warming and volcano eruptions.
Women are ones who chose those bad guys. so ask women to end that "patriarchy" and finally start hanging up with nice guys who actually respect them.

If you women want to be respected  when guy asks "can I kiss you" she must say "yes" instead of turning him down and going with guy who simply ignores her consent and takes her by force.

Quote
Lol feminist conspiracy to sabotage male birth control? lololol
yes, some MGTOW and MRA activists believe so.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 01:27:01 PM
Because of patriarchy, that is why the 'bad guys' win! So end patriarchy and you're good.

Is there anything in the world that is not related to patriarchy? I guess patriarchy is also responsible for global warming and volcano eruptions.
Women are ones who chose those bad guys. so ask women to end that "patriarchy" and finally start hanging up with nice guys who actually respect them.

If you women want to be respected  when guy asks "can I kiss you" she must say "yes" instead of turning him down and going with guy who simply ignores her consent and takes her by force.

Quote
Lol feminist conspiracy to sabotage male birth control? lololol
yes, some MGTOW and MRA activists believe so.

Much of the feminist movement is women fighting patriarchy. The logical result of feminism is encouraging more nice guys and condemning the ones who do bad things, in other words you should join feminism! But being forced to have sex is by definition not a choice.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 03, 2014, 01:52:54 PM
Much of the feminist movement is women fighting patriarchy. The logical result of feminism is encouraging more nice guys and condemning the ones who do bad things, in other words you should join feminism!
What the hell you are supposed to encourage nice guys to do? should they start raping women or what?
better encourage women to CHOSE nice guys and ignore bad guys instead of condemning them and at same time giving them what they want. Who gives a shit about those condemnations and encouragements.

I have absolutely no reason to join feminists, because I am not woman and feminism is about issues of women by definition. Even if those issues are important for women feminists do not care to make decent balance of interests for all sides  and that is evil.
I am strongly against all special interest organizations because I believe that we must give equal rights to everyone or else it will not end well for any side.

Quote
But being forced to have sex is by definition not a choice.
this is because you(this time in person) and most women hate sex.  If you loved it it would not be required to be a choice You would not use condition "do this and then I will spread my legs." If you like sex you do it with everyone at all opportunities.

Considering  difference in male and female sexuality nearly all males immediately agrees on intercourse with completely unknown woman while only very small fraction of women agreed on same thing with completely unknown man. (if you disagree I can find link)

it  this situation it is almost impossible to rape male in theory, because unless he is some freak he will give consent practically all time.
While man will rarely get consent from woman for free. and woman which agrees to have sex for free will be highly condemned by other women because she is devaluing their goods.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 03, 2014, 06:25:42 PM
In case this is news to you :o feminists are not all women, and it's not a woman-only club. There are plenty of cis males and people who don't fit the heteronormative club who are feminists.

We need more nice guys. We need more guys to be nice. We need fewer/zero rapists.

So you're saying that feminists like myself and most women hate sex because they hate to be raped... That sex is optional for men but not for women? Whether they like it or not, they have to accept sex no matter who it is with, how they feel, or any other circumstances? Meanwhile, it is nearly impossible to rape men. Is that right?

Look, here's why feminists are not the true enemy of men's rights:

http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy (http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy)

It's long and a very good read, here's some highlights:
Quote
A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 03, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
Quote
In case this is news to you :o feminists are not all women, and it's not a woman-only club. There are plenty of cis males and people who don't fit the heteronormative club who are feminists.
can you give any explanation why any same person should get involved in the group which does not care about him? If feminists care about rights of everyone equally they should not be named feminists.

I do not accuse that feminists want to specifically oppress men feminists simply do not care about men at all as if men and their issues do not exist entirely. it is woman and manginas club because men are not allowed to enter with their issues.

Quote
So you're saying that feminists like myself and most women hate sex because they hate to be raped... That sex is optional for men but not for women? Whether they like it or not, they have to accept sex no matter who it is with, how they feel, or any other circumstances? Meanwhile, it is nearly impossible to rape men. Is that right?

Talking about men there is no such question whether they like it or not, because they always like it. if you don't like you you are not man, you are freak of nature like gays transsexuals and other minorities (not that being freak is somehow condemnable) However if you refuse sex with woman other men will do not understand you, it will be same as if you just refused to take free bag of gold. Juts imagine if someone runs into police office and yells I was forced to take 1000$ against my will. do you think policemen will go against that criminal or they will laugh and mock that "unfortunate" victim?

women do not have to do anything, however they will face appropriate consequences depending on what they chose to do. I may not like bitter medicine but consequence of refusal will be death. Unfortunately there is no real solution to this problem and I do not demand anything situation is pretty bad.
I guess the best would be if all men could do sex change and get vaginas so that we could just play with each other and ignore women entirely.

Maybe if sexual relations between boys and girls started a the very young age like in kindergarten they could develop more love towards each other and better understand each other needs. 

Quote
It's long and a very good read, here's some highlights:
that's exactly my problem: feminists make shitload of declarations and demands while doing absolutely nothing to prove their intent.
how about starting with taking responsibility for your choices and actually revising that big list to exclude parts that you cant change.

like what for is good that "Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison." do feminists or anyone have any influence on prison rapes or any form of crimes? is there any way to fix that issue? if not why the hell you even mention it?

how about actually screening your desires for contradictions when in one place you say that you are against false accusations and later you are demanding to reduce evidence requirements to prove rape or domestic violence?

cant you see that it is contradiction?

Quote
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys."
of course you do not hate nice guys but you would prefer to use dildo instead of nice guy because nice guy is sexually repulsive for a woman and you cant change that it is encoded genetically.

and finally stop complaining about patriarchy, it is dead long time ago there is no trace of patriarchy left besides some memories about good old times.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 04, 2014, 03:28:57 AM
Well Omega, your point of view sounds very archaic. Death for refusing sex? Good old times? What backwards culture is this? (Are you the ghost of Elliott Rodger, by any chance?) The Patriarchy runs deep. Which reminds me. In India, a story on two sisters gang raped was concluded with: "boys will be boys". (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/teen-sisters-gang-raped-india_n_5408630.html) (I am aware of the irony of linking to the Huffington Post which has sexist linkbait but the original Times article gives me a 404 error.)

See, even IF you were to argue that Patriarchy is not a thing (in the West), it is alive and well in the rest of the world, unmistakably so. Of course I don't think Patriarchy is gone, it's just weaker in some places. I will not stop fighting Patriarchy just because my society has a relatively less violent one (and I mean relatively). I think that the way you make excuses for rape simply indicates that you live in a very extreme rape culture, and that makes me sad because really, that is harmful for everyone. The murderer kills his own soul when he takes the life of another. It is the same thing with a rapist. And it is patriarchy which turns men into rapists AND murderers on a large scale.

Contrary to what you insist Omega, it is not impossible to rape a man. All that is necessary, whether you call it rape or sexual assault, is that it is unwanted, forced, coerced. Anyone can be a victim of rape, and no one really wants to be raped, by definition. Anything else is a twisted shitty distortion. Men don't always want or like sex with women. Men just happen to be privileged to live in societies where women statistically are not rapists as frequently as men are. The problem is that, evident from your rape apologia, you are likely inundated in an extreme form of rape culture. Like much abuse, rape culture thrives through denial of rape. This makes you blind to the fact that both men and women have the right to say no, without need for justification. It is not up to you to run their lives, they will make their own decisions for a variety of reasons that you cannot simply understand and have no right to meddle in. No one really cares if rape apologists think that makes them freaks, weird, or useless. The feeling is mutual. It's none of your business, and whatever judgments you pass upon them for being their authentic selves are gobbledygook. Quit hatin'.

Omega, contrary to what you may have been taught, women are people and have their own minds, and as such they are not something like robots giving sex to every man who wants it. Women are not slaves for sex, contrary to the fact that the world often wants them to be. Women are not your slaves. Not your property. Not your f*ckholes.

Women are human beings.

And it is time that you, and people like you, learn to stop controlling them, learn to give up the tools of oppression, learn to accept women's emerging role in society as human beings on an equal standing to men, learn to interact with them as fellow human beings. Rather than be treated as subhuman and manipulable. I know it must be hard to give up your dominance over women, but no one is equal until no one gender has dominance over the other. I hope you understand by now what I mean by that. To continue on this path of oppression is pure cowardice.

I am coming to learn that few people are as misandrist as MRAs; MRAs seem to be shooting themselves in their feet. It is harmful to men to force them to conform to the patriarchy. While it proffers certain privileges relative to the people they subjugate, it comes with the price of subjugating the good natured part of themselves. Abuse 101, Oppression 101.

Men are involved in feminism because they rightly recognize that feminist values make the world a better place. Remember, it's not always about 'you'. Feminists do care about men, but no one cares for narcissism. If you were listening to Chinese workers like the ones in my avatar talk about the oppression they face on a daily basis, would it be appropriate to chime in: "but my job sucks too, let's talk about ME!"? How is that going to be receieved? What if your family was murdered and you are the sole survivor -- would it be appropriate for your friend to then say: "oh yeah my dog died today, my life sucks". Do you not see how that is so self-absorbed as to be disrespectful and negligent?

If you want to have a club that focuses on men's issues, here's how I would do it: ally with feminists, and analyze men's issues from the standpoint of how patriarchy affects men. The rest of men's issues, aside those covered by patriarchy, are human issues -- issues of government and the economy.

Understand that that list, Omega, is a direct response to the demands of MRAs. It is a demonstration that feminists are not the enemy, in fact they are working to fix the issues that MRAs list. But instead, MRAs and the rest of the manosphere want to fling poo at feminists. The clincher is that feminists do more to solve these issues than MRAs have ever done.

"Nice guys", true nice guys -- not the "nice guys" or "superb gentlemen" like Elliott Rodger -- are in fact far from repulsive to women and enjoy better relationships and more satisfying sex. Nice try but your genes argument is not an argument at all. No point appealing to science if you don't know the first thing about genes. No point in spending too much effort countering your baseless assertions.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 04, 2014, 06:03:16 AM
Quote
Death for refusing sex? Good old times?
you are crazy, I do not say death for refusing sex, this is just example of consequences of your choices.

Quote
"I think that the way you make excuses for rape simply indicates that you live in a very extreme rape culture, and that makes me sad because really, that is harmful for everyone."

are there any people who have sane mind ?
MRA s with ther beliefs about feminists teaming with Illuminati on destroying world feminists fighting against rape culture caused by patriarchy in times when rape is almost nonexistent and patriarchy is only in history books.

there are no murders around that are cause by patriarchy there are just usual criminals who do not care about anything you are just same as Stefan who believes that if you stop using violence on children all world will turn into heaven, No you cannot change anything rape and murder will continue until the end of universe. it does not matter what you do it is here to stay and get used to it.

Quote
All that is necessary, whether you call it rape or sexual assault, is that it is unwanted, forced, coerced.

you are redefining rape, it is not unwanted sex, just like unwanted work is not slavery.
rape is sex achieved by violence and nothing more.
If I pay for sex it is not rape even if woman do not want it. she is obligated to do it if she agreed and took payment.

If you call all unwanted sex rape then yes almost all sex is rape, because women almost newer want it.
it is completely natural when boy says to his girlfriend hare are tickets to the movie want to go along? so spread your legs. girl has no interest in that and hates it but she must do it if she wants to go to the movie.
same is in corporation if boss hired dumb and beautiful secretary who cant do a shit she was hires as sex doll, and she is supposed to do her work or get fired.

woman is completely free to chose if providing sex is worth being paid and she can refuse, but in that case she will not get paid.

this is normal business relationships just like if I employ to some job which I hate with all my heart but i am paid well, it is not slavery this is  market.

maybe I also should demand to get paid without doing my job?

Quote
If you want to have a club that focuses on men's issues, here's how I would do it: ally with feminists, and analyze men's issues from the standpoint of how patriarchy affects men. The rest of men's issues, aside those covered by patriarchy, are human issues -- issues of government and the economy.
I guess that feminism is just another cult which is based on belief in patriarchy god.

Quote
Understand that that list, Omega, is a direct response to the demands of MRAs. It is a demonstration that feminists are not the enemy, in fact they are working to fix the issues that MRAs list. But instead, MRAs and the rest of the manosphere want to fling poo at feminists. The clincher is that feminists do more to solve these issues than MRAs have ever done.
That list is example of crap lies
You redefine words to change their meaning into anything you want what makes all what you say complete bulshit.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 04, 2014, 12:19:28 PM
Patriarchy is as real as Santa Claus. :P
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 04, 2014, 12:22:27 PM
Actually Christianity, Judaism, and Islamism are cults based on belief in a patriarchal god. I'm sure there are more that I didn't think of. ;)

Death is not a natural consequence of the choice to refuse sex -- it is a consequence of an entitled man's choice to murder.

Wow Omega.... I don't know where you live, but it seems we have some steep cultural differences here. Let me say that if you say in the Western world what you say here, people would suspect you of being a rapist. I'm not saying it makes me better that I was born in the West, and it certainly has big problems with the way it colonizes other nations it calls "the developing world", but I certainly acknowledge that that is where feminism has had its best and first influence.

However feminism is coming to other parts of the world. FEMEN for example is a group of radical feminist protestors originating in Ukraine, and while their influence has predictably spread throughout Europe, it is reaching places like Tunisia (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/04/femen-stages-a-topless-jihad/100487/). One Tunisian woman joined their protests but was mercilessly abused (http://mic.com/articles/30887/amina-tyler-tunisian-woman-receiving-death-threats-for-trying-to-start-feminist-group). But that doesn't stop us. Feminism, in all its various configurations, is coming to a place near you. From India to Ireland to Egypt, women are on the streets, on the airwaves, on the internet, getting organised and getting angry. They're co-ordinating in their communities to combat sexual violence and taking a stand against archaic sexist legislation; they're challenging harassment and rape culture. Across the world, women who are sick and tired of shame and fear are fighting back in unprecedented ways. ... Men and boys, too, are involved as allies – not in large numbers, but in numbers large enough to make their presence impossible to overlook. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/13/new-feminism-defying-shame)

Quote from: Laurie Penny
What's fascinating about these new feminist movements is their independence. They're developing organically, outside the well-worn circuit of NGOs, government lobbying and quiet petition-signing that has been the proper format for feminist activism for more than two decades. As if on some secret signal, women and their allies across the world have expressed a collective lack of faith in governments and police forces to deal with endemic sexism.


And in Bangladesh, yes, men have joined the feminist cause (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/18/men-against-violence), protesting and pushing back the rates of acid attacks on women.

Feminism will not stop on the quest for women's liberation. Defend men's privilege as long as you like, the privilege to use and abuse women, but it will end. Women around the world are pissed off and cry, "no more!"

Didn't know that MRAs have conspiracy theories about feminism being the Illuminati, lol.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 04, 2014, 12:39:22 PM
Death is an illusion, I am not afraid of death.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 04, 2014, 12:52:05 PM
Quote
Death is not a natural consequence of the choice to refuse sex -- it is a consequence of an entitled man's choice to murder.

death is casual consequence of refusal to drink antibiotic when you have seriuos infection

I never says anything that death is result of refusal to have sex with man cant you even read what i write properly or you see rapists and murderers everywhere?
refusal to have sex results its own consequences.

Quote
One Tunisian woman joined their protests but was mercilessly abused.
In other words she is a loser. when man is fighting for something and gets abused in result we can him looser not victim.
And here we have just poor damsel in distress who cant do a shit  and bites more than she can chew. and not you play victim card calling men to rescue that poor powerless woman

Also it is well known that porn is best weapon against patriarchy, there is nothing scarier that few bimbos flashing their titties in public.

Quote
And in Bangladesh, yes, men have joined the feminist cause, protesting and pushing back the rates of acid attacks on women.

And so what? I guess now attackers will think "I better wont use acid because there are bunch of idiots on the street that don't like that."

can you do anything that does not rely on presenting yourself as damsel in distress who need to be rescued?

Quote
Feminism will not stop on the quest for women's liberation. Defend men's privilege as long as you like, the privilege to use and abuse women, but it will end. Women around the world are pissed off and cry, "no more!"
Yes crying "no more" will definitely solve all problems.  all women know that crying in front of man usually magically turns things in a way she wanted.

that works well with manginas but real men so not listen to screams, they do what they want.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 04, 2014, 02:18:28 PM
Omega, have you ever had sex with a woman against her will?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 04, 2014, 03:10:59 PM
Omega, have you ever had sex with a woman against her will?

No.

and you should not ask personal questions.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 04, 2014, 04:54:06 PM
Omega, have you ever had sex with a woman against her will?

No.

I would never have guessed because of your rape apologia.

Well, I am done here. No more from me.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: QuestEon on July 04, 2014, 07:57:47 PM
Well, I am done here. No more from me.

Pretty amazing show of patience, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 04, 2014, 11:35:12 PM
Well, I am done here. No more from me.

Pretty amazing show of patience, for what it's worth.

:)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 05, 2014, 11:40:55 AM
And I challenge to you find one area in our society where women are exclusively or disproportionately suffering.

Feminists are Socialists with panties (although I have much respect for that phrase) because they are necessitating the growth of the State by replacing real fathers at home with the Daddy State which will provide without being able to express any grievances or family standards.

"Kill All Men" - Apologized for as "Just a phrase". ([url]http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/kill-all-men/[/url])
([url]http://i.imgur.com/ruoNCJX.jpg[/url])


So like a month later, I am much more equipped to address these conclusions. I am no longer shocked.

1) This is SO easy to do. A mere second of searching will find you something. Here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/02/women-should-just-keep-their-legs-shut-amirite/ (http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/02/women-should-just-keep-their-legs-shut-amirite/)
Quote
Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.


2) As I've already said, I'm an anarchist feminist (libertarian socialist) which means that I don't want a State because I don't trust it to represent my causes, nor anyone else's except the capitalist, ursury-practicing elite and the almighty dollar/pound/euro/etc. Feminism will do just fine without a State, possibly better in my opinion. Oh yeah, I'm a socialist, no lie, but no state for me. But that aside, as I said before, the vast majority of feminists are liberals or social democrats. They want the State to fulfill certain functions, but they certainly don't want fathers to be replaced as that has never been the goal (and I doubt it's been the outcome). Instead they want to legalize abortion and gay marriage, criminalize rape of all kinds including marital rape, equalize the opportunities (more woman CEOs and women in STEM fields for example), make birth control accessible, and in America's case elect the first female president of the US. There are probably more but you get the idea. The point is that feminists are fighting to make women more independent from men, and that's a good thing. This whole thing about a Daddy state could apply to anyone who wants politicans to take care of them. If you're supporting any kind of legislation at all. The state certainly takes liberty to do what it wants, even despite massive protests. Anyway if you think it's bad for women to be independent from men, such as a wife from her husband, you have serious control issues.

3) Yep turns out #killallmen is a joke, sarcasm. And yes while rape jokes are jokes... Each of these jokes have different causes, motives, and outcomes. If you know anything about humor, you would recognize that jokes work on different people, rely on the context of what happened prior, have different meanings, that funny relies on a number of devices (irony, surprise, vice, tension, wordplay, reality and myth, timing, taking yourself less seriously, actual cultural and political circumstances)... No one actually wants to kill all men, and the fact that you would take it seriously is funny. MRAs are the butt of the joke. Meanwhile, plenty of people of both genders (but mostly women) get raped all the f*cking time. An MRA should at least be able to appreciate the wrongness of a rape joke because of the pervasiveness of men getting raped in prison.

That sums it up I think. (If Omega responds, I will not. If Zetaman responds, I might. Don't know about MikeTO.)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 05, 2014, 12:22:55 PM
Now that's funny feminist doesn't need the state.  Look at the funding feminism receives, that's not includes the states made laws for women. LOL

The state is controlled by the 1%.  If we want to control the state (we as in we the people).  We need to make into law it make it illegal for person or organization to donate more than X amount of dollars.  I say no more than $500 then this kind of thing wouldn't happen.  It's not the state it's the politicians that doing the bad thing.  Huge difference.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 05, 2014, 12:25:43 PM
There was another thing that I wasn't feeling complete about:

And what's wrong with calling a person a bitch? Are you seriously going to tell me that this is a form of oppression? What about the women that call women a bitch? Oh wait, that's internalised sexism lol. Maybe the men who call women bitches instinctively feel the game is stacked against them and that's the best they can do. They can't hit them for some reason nobody has been able to explain yet. If a man gives another man grief, the man receiving said grief kicks the crap out of the other man... so generally grief isn't given under threat of violence - and that's how it should be. But when a woman gives a man grief in full knowledge she won't have to suffer a tangible backlash, all that man can do is "verbally assault" her.

Right because he is (cue crocodile tears) unjustly forbidden from physically assaulting her!

Bitch is an inherently gendered insult, and the only way it can be used in a way that is not sexist is to turn it into a compliment.

Assault is just wrong.

Hey hey maybe, maybe, "the men who call women bitches" are trying to put them down, to assert their sense of male superiority! Crazy idea I know.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 05, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Now that's funny feminist doesn't need the state.  Look at the funding feminism receives, that's not includes the states made laws for women. LOL

The state is controlled by the 1%.  If we want to control the state (we as in we the people).  We need to make into law it make it illegal for person or organization to donate more than X amount of dollars.  I say no more than $500 then this kind of thing wouldn't happen.  It's not the state it's the politicians that doing the bad thing.  Huge difference.

As usual MikeTO, you did not properly comprehend my post. Just saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that supporting reforms to stop the 1% from controlling everything makes you a liberal? I'm cool with stuff like Occupy, but my political opinions are in the minority; I'm for change outside of the traditional political channels. Call me cynical, because I am. If you can achieve the reforms, great, but I have no faith. Most feminists support exactly what you are proposing. I even went ahead and signed a petition to do just what you are suggesting, even though I feel like the politicians won't listen and maybe I'm on a list somewhere because of it. Anyway, this political stuff is a tangent.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 05, 2014, 02:17:47 PM
Hillary Clinton, State Feminist?
http://breakthrough.tv/article/hillary-clinton-state-feminist/ (http://breakthrough.tv/article/hillary-clinton-state-feminist/)

What you don't seem to understand the feminist get funding from the state.  If you doubt that do your research.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 05, 2014, 02:22:55 PM
Canadian Taxpayers Funding Radical Feminist Counter-Offensive

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-taxpayers-funding-radical-feminist-counter-offensive (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-taxpayers-funding-radical-feminist-counter-offensive)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 05, 2014, 02:50:54 PM
As just one example of this, many academics who rely on government funding are going to drum up evidence to support the government's point of view, or their funding is going to disappear.)

And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every information source imaginable - even at school.

(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)

The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for them.

But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth. They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.


http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyGovernmentsLoveFeminism.htm (http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyGovernmentsLoveFeminism.htm)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: MikeTO on July 05, 2014, 03:00:27 PM
The "Patriarchy" is the Plutocracy and it's Funding Feminism!

When big changes happen,  follow the money.  Feminist  funding comes from big foundations. Google "Women's Studies" and Rockefeller Foundation and you'll get 132,000 links. Google "Women's Studies" and Ford Foundation and you'll get 217,000 links. Carnegie Foundation yields 197,000 links. They frequently acknowledge foundation funding and expose a massive social engineering program designed to reduce population, emasculate men and undermine the institutions of marriage & family.

Yet, horror to tell, these foundations are dominated by men, not women. Feminism, ostensibly dedicated to "smashing the Patriarchy," is bankrolled by the Patriarchy.

    * A 1990 report by Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy found that 23% of foundations surveyed had no women or people of color as trustees. Furthermore, women of color made up only 5% of all foundation trustees.
    * 71% of foundation members are male. A similar bias exists among foundation directors. At 14%, women are better represented among chief executive officers of foundations, but they tend to head the smaller foundations. The largest independent foundations are headed by men.

If you take the time to really trace NGO funding, the faces change from radical chic hell raiser women gradually into very old white men.

Feminists drawing large salaries in universities and NGO's, all have these unseen sugar daddies.  The rank and file don't know this. They're too busy picking on men who don't pull any more strings in this culture than they do.

I'll show you how to check it out yourself.  First, you'll need the Grants Foundation Index. Using this you can look up foundations and see where their money goes.

Start with an organization's website and where possible, find who funds them, and the list of their board.  Save to a notepad or word.doc.   When you've collected a lot of donors names, most you won't recognize, some you will, but you'll see names crop up over and over again.  They're not all American names either listed on these US foundations.  You'll find many names listed in Who's Who in America consisting of mostly Anglo-Americans, Jews, and a smattering of Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, and some Russian.  But nationalities don't matter.  What binds them more powerfully is that they're all Plutocrats.
http://www.henrymakow.com/the_real_patriarchy_is_plutocr.html (http://www.henrymakow.com/the_real_patriarchy_is_plutocr.html)

Yes sir the elite few funds femism.  Patriarchy at it's best? LOL
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 05, 2014, 03:47:07 PM
Yes sir the elite few funds femism.  Patriarchy at it's best? LOL

You are absolutely right here, and not only funding, but everything else is done by men,
while feminists can only cry and show their titties.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: QuestEon on July 05, 2014, 04:20:07 PM
...while feminists can only cry and show their titties.

You're really catching me in a bad mood, today. Sorry, but here it comes.

This forum was created for respectful discussion based on reason and evidence.  If you want to make these kind of hateful comments about women, please go to Freedomain Radio where you'll be welcomed. If you continue on this path here, you're going to find your privileges suspended.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 05, 2014, 04:45:37 PM
MikeTO, again, you're not understanding what I said. Nothing for me to comment on.

However... There is one thing. I hope it's obvious that the fact that the world is run by older white men is a symptom of Patriarchy.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 05, 2014, 05:21:15 PM
...while feminists can only cry and show their titties.


You're really catching me in a bad mood, today. Sorry, but here it comes.

This forum was created for respectful discussion based on reason and evidence.  If you want to make these kind of hateful comments about women, please go to Freedomain Radio where you'll be welcomed. If you continue on this path here, you're going to find your privileges suspended.


I think my comment was completely reasonable and based on evidence. Also it is not directed towards anyone here in personal.

If someone think that I am wrong they can provide any appropriate evidence to prove that feminists actually did something besides things I mentioned.

here is my example to prove my claims
http://sotomayortv.com/africanizedbeastie/ (http://sotomayortv.com/africanizedbeastie/)
Mother left baby on hot asphalt in the middle of the street and other women only cried and argued with that mother but none of them went to take that baby or even call police and left it to cook there for 45 minutes. 

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on July 06, 2014, 05:10:30 AM

I think my comment was completely reasonable and based on evidence. Also it is not directed towards anyone here in personal.

If someone think that I am wrong they can provide any appropriate evidence to prove that feminists actually did something besides things I mentioned.

here is my example to prove my claims
[url]http://sotomayortv.com/africanizedbeastie/[/url] ([url]http://sotomayortv.com/africanizedbeastie/[/url])
Mother left baby on hot asphalt in the middle of the street and other women only cried and argued with that mother but none of them went to take that baby or even call police and left it to cook there for 45 minutes.

Before clicking the link, I was going to tell you that one news article about one incident is not sufficient to support the claim that no feminist has ever accomplished anything of significance.

The irony is that you have linked to the website of a man who (as far as I can tell from crawling through Google's results about him) is a misogynist racist who cherry-picks incidents involving black women to use as a springboard for his hate speech. The very thing you're trying to prove you are not doing.

I sincerely hope that you are not allowing this person to shape your worldview. Stefan Molyneux looks like a saint in comparison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/tommy-sotomayor-gay-men-_n_3441550.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/tommy-sotomayor-gay-men-_n_3441550.html)
http://tommysotomayor.blogspot.ca/p/about-me.html (http://tommysotomayor.blogspot.ca/p/about-me.html)
https://www.facebook.com/TommySotomayor (https://www.facebook.com/TommySotomayor)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 06, 2014, 05:33:47 AM
I do not deny what you say about that man, however this is just example to illustrate behavior, not to blame someone for what happened. I completely agree to what you say about that person. He is strongly biased, but this is common problem for all media, because everyone will list only facts they like and you must listen to different people to make whole image.


I am asking to provide example of opposite thing where feminists actually did something besides crying, for example castrating the man who poured acid on a woman or protecting their fellows from assault or starting some successful company which employs women into important positions and successfully competes with companies successfully created and ruled by men or overthrowing government something what really makes change.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: QuestEon on July 06, 2014, 11:12:09 AM

I think my comment was completely reasonable and based on evidence. Also it is not directed towards anyone here in personal.

If someone think that I am wrong they can provide any appropriate evidence to prove that feminists actually did something besides things I mentioned.

The great and terrible privilege of running a forum is that I don't need anyone's proof or evidence for how I moderate it. I need only to lay out my expectations for tone and behavior and decide what to do when people reject them.

As a libertarian, I'm deeply committed to freedom of speech but the abusive and toxic language that has emerged during these "I hate wimminz/I hate menz" threads has seriously put that to the test. It has caused me to moderate posts for the first time since this forum began. Now I'm being forced to consider if I need to move to bannings or account suspensions as the next step. You have no idea how much this goes against my philosophy; it's very challenging.

I've already had to remove the "Recent Posts" box on this forum's landing page because it was creating the illusion that this forum has been completely overrun by low-quality discussions about gender relations. That has never been what this forum is about. This forum is about very high-quality analysis of Stefan Molyneux and the business enterprise known as Freedomain Radio. Its main function is to serve as a lighthouse that can guide people through the treacherous waters of relentless Molyneux self-promotion. 

Of course, there is significant freedom to talk about anything else that comes to mind. I encourage it. But even when the conversation does go elsewhere, if there is analysis involved, I still expect it to be one where people are respected while ideas are exchanged.

I am very interested in Molyneux's current venture into misogyny, so I think reasonable, objective analysis of feminism, MRM, MGTOW, AVfM, etc., is more than appropriate. I'm less interested in their actual promotion, but I don't plan on drawing a line as long as everyone keeps it cool.

From where I sit, I don't really have a whole lot of hope for your future here. Whatever you think of feminists, it is empirically true that it is a belief set of widely divergent viewpoints and definitions. It's made up of a vast number of people ranging from not-so-bright to genius, all with different goals, objectives, philosophies, politics, and moral standards. It has spanned decades. Given such an extreme set of characteristics, those are about the only general things one can say about feminism.

I'm not saying it's wrong or right, good or bad. It's simply saying that the above facts are empirically true to any rational human being. For example, even though I'm an atheist I'd say the same above things about Christianity (except it has spanned centuries). While I can clearly see the lunacy of some fundamentalists, I have the highest respect for Christianity's deepest thinkers (who may be smarter than me in so many ways, even though I disagree with them on their faith). You, on the other hand, have already claimed to be smarter than any religious person who has ever lived.

Now you have summed up all of feminism with this dismissive, abusive and vaguely slut shame-y phrase: "feminists can only cry and show their titties." Worse, you believe that line is "completely reasonable and based on evidence." It isn't the first time you've said something like this--but it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

As I've said too many times elsewhere, I've been really busy in my real life and lately haven't had time to participate in FDRLiberated as much as I should. So, I'm not responding to you to kick off a long and protracted discussion in which you refuse to see the point. That's not going to happen. I'm trying to be as clear as I can now, so that if you remain unable to raise the quality of your arguments above unsupportable generalities laced with abusive vulgarity there will be no confusion as to why I've suspended your account, should I need to.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 06, 2014, 01:21:32 PM
For the record QuestEon I don't think anyone here has said that they hate men, I certainly don't argue it.

I have read and I acknowledge your rules  :) -- of course if anyone feels like I'm too rude, please feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 07, 2014, 11:56:40 PM
I can't resist ;D...

I am asking to provide example of opposite thing where feminists actually did something


Omega keeps implying that women and feminists do nothing, men do everything. ::) This is very a common refrain among habitants of the manosphere, according to my research.

I feel that the following statement encapsulates quite well this very common, silly attitude: "we hunted the mammoth to feed you"! (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2010/12/19/air-conditioning-for-women-a-terrible-injustice/)
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 08, 2014, 05:56:41 AM
I can't resist ;D...

I am asking to provide example of opposite thing where feminists actually did something


Omega keeps implying that women and feminists do nothing, men do everything. ::) This is very a common refrain among habitants of the manosphere, according to my research.

I feel that the following statement encapsulates quite well this very common, silly attitude: "we hunted the mammoth to feed you"! ([url]http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2010/12/19/air-conditioning-for-women-a-terrible-injustice/[/url])


First I do not say that "women do nothing" I said "feminists do nothing".
And in contrast to that article what I meant has nothing to do with being grateful.
it is simply about achieving what you want on your own.
You declare to be independent how about proving that with actions?

You always portray yourself being oppressed by patriarchy monster but you do not actually fight that monster yourself you want government to defeat it for you.

Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 09, 2014, 02:58:14 AM
I can't believe I am still responding to Omega but he consistently churns out delicious misinformation that I would like readers to know about. And since this is very relevant to the thread topic and has been said a few times before, no, it is not as simple as 'feminists are relying on the daddy state to get things done for them'.

First of all, it is lauded that the only way to get anything done politically in any country on this planet, if it is even possible, is to participate in the political system, going through the 'proper channels' such as voting, lobbying, petitioning, calling your representative, joining a political party, participating in campaigns, forming a political party, or running for office. Another thing you can do is gain influence in the economy and exploit that for political ends, and one such way is sitting on the advisory board in your industry to think of ways to change public opinion through clever marketing, such as persuading men to wear makeup (a new source of profit) by playing upon their insecurities, but I digress. If you're for any state at all, then you will most likely have no problem with such participation in mainstream politics, and will be encouraged to participate yourself to further your own political ends. Naturally a statist believes this is the way to go, and if you don't participate then you have nothing to complain about.

Secondly, if you are not a statist then you recognize the state as an oppressive institution by its very nature.

As such, I don't blame feminists for doing what everyone (everyone, even raw milk enthusiasts) is doing to traverse the political landscape. It doesn't reflect on their philosophy because feminism doesn't necessitate a state: the state as the ultimate gatekeeper necessitates that everyone go through it.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 09, 2014, 08:46:58 AM
Quote
If you're for any state at all, then you will most likely have no problem with such participation in mainstream politics, and will be encouraged to participate yourself to further your own political ends. Naturally a statist believes this is the way to go, and if you don't participate then you have nothing to complain about.

politic is crap, all those politicians are nothing more than puppets
economy is what matters if someone found a way to monetize cannibalism to make serious money I can bet government will immediately make it legal to grind children into sausages.
Government has no empathy or morality their only care is economy how to get more money from their resources.
It does not matter what people want to or think everything evolves in a way to suit economy and nobody can change it.
If you want to influence society you must influence economy.

Quote
Secondly, if you are not a statist then you recognize the state as an oppressive institution by its very nature.

So who if not state is going to pay for birth control who will protect you from rapists and generic criminals? Who will take care of orphans?
without state feminism could not even exist because it would be exterminated by evolution:

Man is relatively free to do whatever he like and he is pretty much invincible.
Typical woman on the other hand has no freedom, if she has children she must support them, she cant go to fight and risk her life she cant take any significant risks that can destroy her financial stability. She is extremely vulnerable because anyone can attack her children and no mater how strong is that woman herself she will be defeated without fight.
all those facts shape mind of men and women.

Quote
feminism doesn't necessitate a state: the state as the ultimate gatekeeper necessitates that everyone go through it.

how is that different from Stefan's nonsense who believes that if only women would stop beating their children violence would stop exist on earth by itself?
in fact feminism is all about state excursively, it is about laws and enforcing them.

Aslo some words on PUA.
All links provides prove exactly what i say:
every one of then declares PUA as dangerous social engineering.  with lots of emphasis on improper use to take away free will from women.
that fact alone proves that PUA is highly effective or if it was ineffective there would be no dangers. As far as I see nobody really questions efficiency of PUA methods.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on July 09, 2014, 10:41:42 AM
without state feminism could not even exist because it would be exterminated by evolution:

Man is relatively free to do whatever he like and he is pretty much invincible.
Typical woman on the other hand has no freedom, if she has children she must support them, she cant go to fight and risk her life she cant take any significant risks that can destroy her financial stability. She is extremely vulnerable because anyone can attack her children and no mater how strong is that woman herself she will be defeated without fight.
all those facts shape mind of men and women.

Here is what I am getting from your post. Let me know if I'm off track.
Did I capture your perspective?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Argent on July 09, 2014, 11:21:16 AM
Now, the reason I disagree with what I wrote above is its very framing. Men vs. women. State of nature vs. modern socialist times.

First of all, there is not a hard split between men and women. They are not two warring tribes that exist independently of each other but battle for resources. In reality, men come from women (sons), and women come from men (daughters). Men tend to have more masculine characteristics and women tend to have more feminine characteristics, but everybody has a mix of both. Some of those characteristics are genetic, but others are socialized (i.e. we teach males to behave one way, and females to behave another way).

Second, the characterization of the state is very simplistic. The state does more than take money from men and give it to women. It does lots of things that benefit men as well as women. A cynical person (sometimes including me) would say it also does lots of things that harm both common men and common women, for the benefit of the elite.

Third, the heavy reliance on evolutionary psychology. Check out wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology) to see how contentious it is.

When you start with black-and-white or overly simplistic premises that don't reflect reality, you end up with conclusions that are misguided or just wrong.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 09, 2014, 02:50:35 PM
Quote
Here is what I am getting from your post. Let me know if I'm off track.
Purpose of that my statement was different I was talking about feminists not about women.
and I meant that state is required to enforce feminist demands.

I did not thought about things you wrote in my post,  women should benefit from some aspects of state state more than men if state is socialistic but those are benefits of socialism not benefits of state.
I am noticing that term "socialism" and term "state" are becoming synonymous, but is socialism cannot exist without state, state can perfectly exist without socialism.

Quote
First of all, there is not a hard split between men and women. They are not two warring tribes that exist independently of each other but battle for resources. In reality, men come from women (sons), and women come from men (daughters). Men tend to have more masculine characteristics and women tend to have more feminine characteristics, but everybody has a mix of both. Some of those characteristics are genetic, but others are socialized (i.e. we teach males to behave one way, and females to behave another way).

Unfortunately they are almost different species
even if everything is almost same, everything is expressed in very different amounts.
even brain sizes and structures are different.  it is not same if we I have 10% x and 90% y and you have 90% x and 10% y.
Of course, because of our plasticity, it is possible to socialize female as male, but they will perform poorly under typical roles, or they will feel unhappy.
You must utilize most expressed feature to be happy and successful.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 09, 2014, 06:04:45 PM
socialism cannot exist without state, state can perfectly exist without socialism.[/i]

Another amusing myth. I am a libertarian socialist; your argument is invalid.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 09, 2014, 09:07:40 PM
socialism cannot exist without state, state can perfectly exist without socialism.[/i]

Another amusing myth. I am a libertarian socialist; your argument is invalid.

libertarian socialist, oxymoron, these things are opposite to each other.
you have no clue what you believe

If you think it is possible who will pay for all social programs? maybe money is going to fall from the sky?
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 10, 2014, 03:49:46 AM
socialism cannot exist without state, state can perfectly exist without socialism.[/i]

Another amusing myth. I am a libertarian socialist; your argument is invalid.

libertarian socialist, oxymoron, these things are opposite to each other.
you have no clue what you believe

If you think it is possible who will pay for all social programs? maybe money is going to fall from the sky?

Ignorance is not an argument good sir
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 10, 2014, 04:30:36 AM
Ignorance is not an argument good sir
Your delusions are not good argument either
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 10, 2014, 04:32:27 AM
Ignorance is not an argument good sir
Your delusions are not good argument either

Says the guy who has no idea what a lib soc is. Are we going to keep going in circles or are you going to crack open a book?

Pretense of knowledge will not add anything to this forum's quality. I feel as though we are diminishing it by the second. I'd rather you went back to /b/.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 10, 2014, 01:17:15 PM
Says the guy who has no idea what a lib soc is. Are we going to keep going in circles or are you going to crack open a book?


there is no such thing as liberal socialism just like there is no hard liquid.
when this term is used in practice it is mix of socialism and capitalism, when socialists ride on capitalists back. and all that is only possible because of draconian state which taxes everyone who dares to work.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 11, 2014, 09:55:09 PM
No Omega, libertarian socialism.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 12, 2014, 06:03:07 AM
No Omega, libertarian socialism.

This is  even bigger bulshit, with absolutely no practical application and no way it could ever work.
No matter which utopia you want to make you need powerful state which will kill or imprison those who disagree with your way of life.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: phlogiston on July 12, 2014, 06:56:59 AM
 Libertarian means the people decide on an individual level. Socialism means that the earth is not one individuals.
 Under what philosophy does an individual let another take their liberty away? Under what society does another let them take their liberty away?  Both Socialism and Libertarianism stand tall yet fail to the mediocrity of the plural party system.
 Any system that was about real improvement would work. Every system is about castration, hate, what not, above actual help. When we get down to it we will benefit everyone. Mayor Nagin is in prison. Mayor Tommy Thompson just got out. New Orleans will benefit.
 Libertarian means people taking responsibility for life. Yet here they expect the government. I can't get the police when called about a gun on my life.
 No, Libertarian, responsibility is not about you but about others. If I could do my own thing I would. I might in extreme cases watch you die by the guy who who next murder me at Mall is some dingy town. No in extreme Libertarianism I am the foil against that person.   I have to "NOT" do others things. I can't call the cops, I am libertarian.  I didn't call the cops as someone stole hubcaps. Really? I just got off work. At least no one was shot. I did have my knife out. I am somewhat libertarian.
 In the same vein a socialist is about everyone and not the individual. I have seen so many people dependent on government handouts hiding inside as people are getting shot. Again I was one of those people. Socialists like libertarians are both about getting the most while not being part of society.
 Real responsibly means real death. Libertarians won't accept that unless it is themselves even if they are next and real socialists won't accept real involvement like calling the police because it might make their individual selves next.
 The State has its own reason's and only individuals can make them work. I know. Been there.  Almost every night and most not reported, bad.

 
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Lee Li on July 12, 2014, 11:54:16 AM
Now phlogiston has also jumped on the ignorance bandwagon. You two are wasting my time. I'm not going to explain to you what libertarian socialism is when you can just look it up in your browser. Why Omega and phlogiston, or anyone for that matter, think it's appropriate to speak about something that, by their post(s) on it, clearly have read nothing at all about, and have no clue about, leaves me dumbfounded.

Even if you start arguing about it after you read a small paragraph, that won't suffice. Come back when you've read at least one book by the proponents of such a political theory. That's nice of me, considering that I've studied the political spectrum for the last 5 years or so and only with a good understanding of the whole do the different parts and positions on the political spectrum make any sense -- that is, they make sense relative to each other, so you have to study each tendency. Human systems are very complex.

No debate will happen. My aim was to expose your ignorance, and it has been accomplished.

I think one of the worst influences of Stefan is that he encourages people to presume knowledge that they do not have, and spoonfeeds them 'wisdom' to make them feel like they have not only knowledge, but The Answer(tm).

Running out of opponents. I need to find myself something better to do.
Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: Omega on July 12, 2014, 12:44:24 PM
There is no reason to do lots of analysis just to point out one thing:
No matter what kind of order you want to maintain you need to use force and that force requires energy.

Unless of course you are living in delusion like Stefan, who believes that everyone around are goodies, who care about other people and have good will, and all you need to do is to help everyone find a best way to serve each other.
If only we could defeat that evil patriarchy/(stop mothers for beating their children) heaven on earth will come. all aggression will magically disappear.

Get to the reality.


Title: Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
Post by: phlogiston on July 14, 2014, 06:29:34 AM
 MY post was that socialism is the board while libertarianism is the players. They go together is what I said which took your side.  Saying you won't respond to that point and also calling me ig'nant is ok but it is not addressing what I brought up.
 Yes I have 4 years of political science studies and I think its all about creating beliefs in the populous brains. No Ideology has lived up to its ideal.
 Politics assumes there is a "right" way. Why? Slaves? Why not? Beat Everyone? Why Not? Why anything? Everyone benefits is a good reason but so what? If a person can die at 30 with nothing while king can live to 100 is that better than all of us living till 60 with diamonds up our ass?
 I have my opinion, that king has his, I have my mine, and you have yours. They are all opinions. What makes an opinion right? Lets all do what we want if we can get away with it. History shows that is correct.