‹‹ Back to the Serious discussions Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 [23]
Posts: 686  
Users visited: 371  
Search this topic:  


The original post

Posted by on 22.10.2006 at 20:47
I'm really tired of all the feminists who blames every single bad thing in the society on the men.

A few years ago the leader of the national organisation for women- and girl-helpcenters (dont know the proper english translation) said, in public, that all men are pigs. How the hell can she say something like that? How the hell can women draw the conclusion that ALL men are bad?
Afterwards, when it had been on the first page in every newspaper, there was a reporter who asked her if she still meant what she said. She answered "But all men ARE pigs. Don't YOU think so?"
When I heard that I was like "whoa!" I mean, she sounded like a freakin maniac. I was honestly scared.

Another feminist debate in Sweden was whether we would boycott the FIFA World Cup just because prostitution is legal in Germany. Some stupid feminist (can't remember name) wrote a blog about that men "should take their responsibility". She said that if you're not against it, you're with it. How the hell can she really believe that i can't enjoy football without having to fuck a prostitute after a game? Talk about preconceived opinions.
"Men are pigs" pfff... That fucking feminist blogger is nothing but a filthy animal.

Since a new party started in Swedish politics, Feministic Initiative, I am no longer a feminist. I do believe that men and women should be equal to eachother, but the word feminist has got a new meaning to me. Feminism is now a synonyme to the word "sexism".
This party wanted all men to pay a certain tax that would pay for the rehabilitation of beat up women. Fucking fascists!

And have you heard about the book "The SCUM-manifest"? The author basically says that men are the reason why the world is as bad as it is, and that all women should exterminate the male gender. Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow. Could it be MEIN KAMPF, written by freakin ADOLF HITLER??? Only the word "jew" has been replaced by the word "male".

I am not a feminist, but I am a feminimasculinist. I don't want women to run the world. I want both men AND women to do it. Therefore, I am a feminimasculinist.
All feminists should burn in hell. Boycott feminism.



Page 23 of 23

IronAngel

Posts: 4523

Age: 26
From: Finland

  23.06.2015 at 00:29
Written by Rasputin on 22.06.2015 at 23:21


Do you realize what you have just written? All of this would brand you as a stare-rapist, creeper and misogynist. LMAO, you just admitted sexually objectifying women, and that is a big no no among Feminists. Do me a favor, drop this paragraph to some American Feminist sites, let's see how long will you last.

According to modern feminism, it is your fault for oogling women, and everything is wrong by enjoying the opposite sex, because you are taking away their female agency by reducing them to a sex object. You need to control your sexuality buddy, you need to shut that part of your brain down, because Feminists want you to. We are not animals, so stop acting like one.


Then those "feminists" would be stupid and wrong. And I have never suggested the majority aren't: feminists are like any other people, and most people are fucking stupid. But your caricature is not very accurate; I have no doubt some populists would have that kneejerk reaction, but intelligent people wouldn't misuse terminology so.

Objectification, for example, does not mean treating someone as an object of your purposes - sexual or otherwise. It means reducing someone to an object, and recognizing in them no other value. It is what Kant's categorical imperative means: you mustn't treat another "merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." We are objects to each other, but that is not all we are. Simone de Beauvoir understood this: the human condition is the ambiguity of being a subject to oneself and an object to others. I seem to recall that she especially stressed this dualism in a sexual encounter, when one becomes aware of the other as a subject and oneself as an object of desire/pleasure. Do not claim that feminist theory is unaware of this. It is extremely probable that most uneducated individuals have misinterpreted this stuff, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

Your focus is continually on what other people say and believe. That should have little bearing on the topic: every feminist on the planet might be a terrible person twisting their ideology for their own nefarious purposes, but feministic arguments could still be entirely correct. You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.
ixsetf

Posts: 23

Age: 20
From: USA
  23.06.2015 at 04:26
Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 00:29
Then those "feminists" would be stupid and wrong. And I have never suggested the majority aren't: feminists are like any other people, and most people are fucking stupid. But your caricature is not very accurate; I have no doubt some populists would have that kneejerk reaction, but intelligent people wouldn't misuse terminology so.

Objectification, for example, does not mean treating someone as an object of your purposes - sexual or otherwise. It means reducing someone to an object, and recognizing in them no other value. It is what Kant's categorical imperative means: you mustn't treat another "merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." We are objects to each other, but that is not all we are. Simone de Beauvoir understood this: the human condition is the ambiguity of being a subject to oneself and an object to others. I seem to recall that she especially stressed this dualism in a sexual encounter, when one becomes aware of the other as a subject and oneself as an object of desire/pleasure. Do not claim that feminist theory is unaware of this. It is extremely probable that most uneducated individuals have misinterpreted this stuff, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

Your focus is continually on what other people say and believe. That should have little bearing on the topic: every feminist on the planet might be a terrible person twisting their ideology for their own nefarious purposes, but feministic arguments could still be entirely correct. You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.

The "Object" of objectification isn't the same sort of object used in common speech, it is the philosophical definition meaning a thing being observed. Therefore the antonym of objectification in this context is "subjectification". Thus as the act of "looking at and enjoying the opposite sex" would count as observing the opposite sex, it counts as objectification. This definition isn't something I just made up, a number of feminist acquaintances have informed me this is the primary definition used in feminist theory.
IronAngel

Posts: 4523

Age: 26
From: Finland

  23.06.2015 at 12:54
Written by ixsetf on 23.06.2015 at 04:26

The "Object" of objectification isn't the same sort of object used in common speech, it is the philosophical definition meaning a thing being observed. Therefore the antonym of objectification in this context is "subjectification". Thus as the act of "looking at and enjoying the opposite sex" would count as observing the opposite sex, it counts as objectification. This definition isn't something I just made up, a number of feminist acquaintances have informed me this is the primary definition used in feminist theory.


Nor was I relying on everyday terminology; I thought my references to Kant and de Beauvoir established the post firmly in the philosophical discourse.

There are of course conflicting opinions on what objectification is and whether it is always bad. However, your definition certainly isn't correct; either you misunderstood your acquaintances or they were wrong. Martha Nussbaum lists several features of objectification, and while it is unclear from the article below how many criteria need to be met for something to count as objectification, the first item (instrumentality, e.g. being an instrument of sexual pleasure through watching) certainly isn't enough. This is Nussbaum's list:

1 instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
2 denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
3 inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
4 fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
5 violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
6 ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
7 denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

We are always tools for each other's purposes, moreso in some circumstances than others. When I want to buy stuff, the cashier is an instrument for my purposes. It becomes objectification of the problematic kind if I deny the cashier any value beyond that; if I discount his opinions on politics because he's just a cashier (and not due to any demonstrated ignorance), if I forget that he is a human being outside of the workplace too, that he has his own hopes and designs not centered around servicing me.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

That said, "objectification" is an unhelpful buzzword that is frequently misapplied and merely allows the speaker to forgo arguing why something is actually wrong. "But this is objectification, end of story!" If something really is, sure, but you might as well point out the exact features that make something "objectifying" and hence wrong. I prefer we stick to common-sense terms and make our arguments plain.
ixsetf

Posts: 23

Age: 20
From: USA
  23.06.2015 at 19:30
Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 12:54
That said, "objectification" is an unhelpful buzzword that is frequently misapplied and merely allows the speaker to forgo arguing why something is actually wrong. "But this is objectification, end of story!" If something really is, sure, but you might as well point out the exact features that make something "objectifying" and hence wrong. I prefer we stick to common-sense terms and make our arguments plain.

This is probably the primary problem, I don't think authors necessarily agree on a single definition making it very difficult to actually know what people are actually saying. The definition I had was based on a more broad definition of object than is typically used by feminists. The definition of object as something which is observed is not incorrect, but the term is often used to contrast subject and in that case would also require that the object not have a unique consciousness. The definition I gave was incorrect because it used the more broad definition of object rather than the more narrow definition which contrasts from subject. I would correct my earlier definition by adding that the objectifying behavior doesn't recognize a unique consciousness. That said the behavior you describe is objectification under the more full definition as well as it doesn't explicitly recognize the unique consciousness of the women he is viewing.

In the article you linked it says that "Kant is worried that when people exercise their sexuality outside the context of monogamous marriage, they treat humanity merely as a means for their sexual purposes.". The behavior you describe is the exercise of sexuality, and is clearly not a part of monogamous marriage, so Kant would likely consider it objectifying behavior.
IronAngel

Posts: 4523

Age: 26
From: Finland

  23.06.2015 at 21:38
No doubt Kant would, but he was a 18th century moralist nerd who never got laid. Fortunately, sexual ethics has come a long way since then and we are free to enjoy each other without shame.

Objectification, insofar as it is wrong, means denying someone's subjectivity altogether. Understandably, we rarely actively consider someone's subjectivity when it has no bearing on the situation.

Looking at someone sexually is exercising you freedom to see. Whether you're objectifying the object of your gaze depends on your attitude and what else you do; do you believe they exist, or (should) dress up, purely for your viewing pleasure? Do you think it is appropriate to make rude sexual advances and get offended when they aren't welcomed? Or do you smile politely if they meet your gaze, and recognise they are a person?

The problem with accusations of objectification is that it's impossible to get inside someone's head and see what they really think. We're left with evaluating external behaviour. But it's not hard to know how you yourself should behave: be polite, be nice, whether you're dealing with a man or a woman. It's perfectly alright to treat the cashier as a means to your ends (of buying food), just like you are a means to my end of getting heard/influencing opinion, or like a busty woman in a low-cut top is an object of my sexual gaze, but only as long as you are prepared to also treat them as another human being - politely and fairly.
Angelic Storm
Melodious

Posts: 6675
From: UK

  24.06.2015 at 08:23
Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 00:29
You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.


No need to engage in a pointless "debate" with Rasputin, what you've said here is 100% correct. The big mistake Rasputin makes is equating a minority, extremist wing of feminism as representative of feminism itself. Which is very foolish. But he is a sexist, and homophobe, so that should come as no surprise to anybody.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  24.06.2015 at 20:41
Written by Angelic Storm on 24.06.2015 at 08:23

Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 00:29
You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.


No need to engage in a pointless "debate" with Rasputin, what you've said here is 100% correct. The big mistake Rasputin makes is equating a minority, extremist wing of feminism as representative of feminism itself. Which is very foolish. But he is a sexist, and homophobe, so that should come as no surprise to anybody.

The minority is the majority now, and even if they are not in some cities and areas, they are the most vocal, so what they say goes.
Here is another buzzword "homophobe" hmm, wrong, but I don't give a fuck what you think. Sexist? Not quite. You forgot Islamophobe and White Supremacist :0
Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 21:38


Looking at someone sexually is exercising you freedom to see. Whether you're objectifying the object of your gaze depends on your attitude and what else you do; do you believe they exist, or (should) dress up, purely for your viewing pleasure? Do you think it is appropriate to make rude sexual advances and get offended when they aren't welcomed? Or do you smile politely if they meet your gaze, and recognise they are a person?

The problem with accusations of objectification is that it's impossible to get inside someone's head and see what they really think. We're left with evaluating external behaviour. But it's not hard to know how you yourself should behave: be polite, be nice, whether you're dealing with a man or a woman. It's perfectly alright to treat the cashier as a means to your ends (of buying food), just like you are a means to my end of getting heard/influencing opinion, or like a busty woman in a low-cut top is an object of my sexual gaze, but only as long as you are prepared to also treat them as another human being - politely and fairly.

You tell that to the Feminists, since we have dangers of Eye Rape and Stare Rape, and the Feminists seem to be able to read minds since they know that when someone is looking at them, he/she is raping them...mentally.
Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 00:29

Written by Rasputin on 22.06.2015 at 23:21


Do you realize what you have just written? All of this would brand you as a stare-rapist, creeper and misogynist. LMAO, you just admitted sexually objectifying women, and that is a big no no among Feminists. Do me a favor, drop this paragraph to some American Feminist sites, let's see how long will you last.

According to modern feminism, it is your fault for oogling women, and everything is wrong by enjoying the opposite sex, because you are taking away their female agency by reducing them to a sex object. You need to control your sexuality buddy, you need to shut that part of your brain down, because Feminists want you to. We are not animals, so stop acting like one.


Then those "feminists" would be stupid and wrong. And I have never suggested the majority aren't: feminists are like any other people, and most people are fucking stupid. But your caricature is not very accurate; I have no doubt some populists would have that kneejerk reaction, but intelligent people wouldn't misuse terminology so.

Objectification, for example, does not mean treating someone as an object of your purposes - sexual or otherwise. It means reducing someone to an object, and recognizing in them no other value. It is what Kant's categorical imperative means: you mustn't treat another "merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." We are objects to each other, but that is not all we are. Simone de Beauvoir understood this: the human condition is the ambiguity of being a subject to oneself and an object to others. I seem to recall that she especially stressed this dualism in a sexual encounter, when one becomes aware of the other as a subject and oneself as an object of desire/pleasure. Do not claim that feminist theory is unaware of this. It is extremely probable that most uneducated individuals have misinterpreted this stuff, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

Your focus is continually on what other people say and believe. That should have little bearing on the topic: every feminist on the planet might be a terrible person twisting their ideology for their own nefarious purposes, but feministic arguments could still be entirely correct. You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.

Didn't you know? Feminists are never stupid and wrong. And this stands for what they argue about. Like I said, post your comment on any Feminist American site and see the sparks fly. These are College Professors that are using this terminology and this interpretation, not me.

Fuck Kant, we are not talking philosophy here, or his form of philosophy, we are talking about feminism, its theory and practice.

Low-brow media? Sure, but it is the mainstream media, and when Anita Sarkesian for instance is being praised, of Emma Watson for their stupidity, that is ok. Feminists are easy targets because of the nonsense they support and advocate.

Pray say, when did you counter me with anything? When did any of you counter any of my arguments except running to the dictionary and showing me "look this is what feminism stands for" but I am again talking about the practice, not some bullshit they themselves cannot follow and contradict each other every step of the way.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  24.06.2015 at 22:32
More fun Feminist stuff...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/22/meet-the-taxpayer-funded-feminist-professor-who-demands-men-control/
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/university-diversity-officer-keeps-job-despite-kill-all-white-men-tweet/story-fnkgbb3b-1227374221246
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/lorde-and-lena-dunham-say-women-who-denounce-feminism-just-havent-been-educated/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/books/reviews/waragainstboys0703.htm

Normal feminist for a change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ewU33EdNnM&feature=youtu.be

Interesting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11693577/Loneliness-I-was-lonely-until-I-got-a-boyfriend.-Bad-feminist-alert.html

More feminist garbage to follow suit

Addition. ROFL!!!
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/male-feminist-rules-to-follow/
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  27.06.2015 at 01:48
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jEQYHAFfjg Peaceful Feminists....
ixsetf

Posts: 23

Age: 20
From: USA
  27.06.2015 at 04:20
Written by Rasputin on 24.06.2015 at 22:32
Normal feminist for a change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ewU33EdNnM&feature=youtu.be


I have generally agreed with what this woman has said in the videos I've seen, but I wouldn't consider her a normal feminist. Normal would mean that her views are usual, but for most issues there are few feminists out there that side with her. For proof, just look in the comments section. A major Men's Rights Activist, Karen Straughan, often makes comments indicating her agreement with the content of The Factual Feminist's videos.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  27.06.2015 at 05:13
Written by ixsetf on 27.06.2015 at 04:20

Written by Rasputin on 24.06.2015 at 22:32
Normal feminist for a change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ewU33EdNnM&feature=youtu.be


I have generally agreed with what this woman has said in the videos I've seen, but I wouldn't consider her a normal feminist. Normal would mean that her views are usual, but for most issues there are few feminists out there that side with her. For proof, just look in the comments section. A major Men's Rights Activist, Karen Straughan, often makes comments indicating her agreement with the content of The Factual Feminist's videos.

Which is interesting if you take a look at the other video I posted. If Sommers is a feminist, if Karen is supporting her, I have no problem with that type of thinking, because it is based in logic and reason, however, what I keep seeing, hearing and being bombarded by is the wave after wave of modern day feminists who are against everything either are saying. Like I said before, while I do not want to dismiss entire feminism as a whole, I am forced to, because feminists like the ones from the second video are polluting and destroying anything positive from being created, and Feminist is a word with a negative trait, you cannot use it anymore and expect it to be regarded as positive and equal, because simply the current dialogue or lack of it, is pointing to the contrary.

If we have women who are agreeing with me "the lunatic" "sexist" "misogynist" and fighting against the same things I am fighting against, what does that say about them? Are they all those things, or are we finally gonna sit down and say "fuck, we have a problem here."

#yesallmen
#killallmen
In my eyes is a problem.
ixsetf

Posts: 23

Age: 20
From: USA
  27.06.2015 at 08:49
Written by Rasputin on 27.06.2015 at 05:13
Which is interesting if you take a look at the other video I posted. If Sommers is a feminist, if Karen is supporting her, I have no problem with that type of thinking, because it is based in logic and reason, however, what I keep seeing, hearing and being bombarded by is the wave after wave of modern day feminists who are against everything either are saying. Like I said before, while I do not want to dismiss entire feminism as a whole, I am forced to, because feminists like the ones from the second video are polluting and destroying anything positive from being created, and Feminist is a word with a negative trait, you cannot use it anymore and expect it to be regarded as positive and equal, because simply the current dialogue or lack of it, is pointing to the contrary.

If we have women who are agreeing with me "the lunatic" "sexist" "misogynist" and fighting against the same things I am fighting against, what does that say about them? Are they all those things, or are we finally gonna sit down and say "fuck, we have a problem here."

#yesallmen
#killallmen
In my eyes is a problem.


The thing about feminism is that many people have stopped using the dictionary definition of it, many others pretended to stop using the dictionary definition while still using it anyway, and almost everyone has attached the existence of the patriarchy and a bunch of other extra ideas to it.

Written by Rasputin on 24.06.2015 at 22:32
Addition. ROFL!!!
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/male-feminist-rules-to-follow/

This would be a lot more funny if I didn't personally know multiple people who use this site and others advocating very similar ideas. There is a lot of pressure to pretend to accept this sort of thing as the truth, and I've been chewed out multiple times for not fully supporting it.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  27.06.2015 at 09:25
Written by ixsetf on 27.06.2015 at 08:49

Written by Rasputin on 27.06.2015 at 05:13
Which is interesting if you take a look at the other video I posted. If Sommers is a feminist, if Karen is supporting her, I have no problem with that type of thinking, because it is based in logic and reason, however, what I keep seeing, hearing and being bombarded by is the wave after wave of modern day feminists who are against everything either are saying. Like I said before, while I do not want to dismiss entire feminism as a whole, I am forced to, because feminists like the ones from the second video are polluting and destroying anything positive from being created, and Feminist is a word with a negative trait, you cannot use it anymore and expect it to be regarded as positive and equal, because simply the current dialogue or lack of it, is pointing to the contrary.

If we have women who are agreeing with me "the lunatic" "sexist" "misogynist" and fighting against the same things I am fighting against, what does that say about them? Are they all those things, or are we finally gonna sit down and say "fuck, we have a problem here."

#yesallmen
#killallmen
In my eyes is a problem.


The thing about feminism is that many people have stopped using the dictionary definition of it, many others pretended to stop using the dictionary definition while still using it anyway, and almost everyone has attached the existence of the patriarchy and a bunch of other extra ideas to it.

Written by Rasputin on 24.06.2015 at 22:32
Addition. ROFL!!!
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/male-feminist-rules-to-follow/

This would be a lot more funny if I didn't personally know multiple people who use this site and others advocating very similar ideas. There is a lot of pressure to pretend to accept this sort of thing as the truth, and I've been chewed out multiple times for not fully supporting it.

The dictionary definition is all fine and dandy, but it was never implemented to begin with. It sounds good on paper, like Communism (which ironically they got a lot things for their little cult, to include the class versus class war). That is the thing, while there are women who are for equality, they are silenced or afraid to speak out. You have "Women Against Feminism" and they got death threats, and wishes to get raped by the same Feminists who are so afraid of rape, because they do not want for any woman to be anything other than a Feminist. You can be all you want to be, but if you are a woman a Feminist is a must.

Look at the video, and the way they are behaving, that is coming to every college soon, not just those places in Canada, or the State of California. I am opposing this behavior, and this kind of manipulation and freedom of speech control.

From what I keep seeing, there is very little pretending. Well, you are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else is, and to me that is disheartening that you cannot voice your view because you are afraid of the backlash. They are using scare tactics to make men and women tow the line.

I also do not like that not being a Feminist, not supporting this Cult like behavior is now labelled as sexist, misogynistic and evil.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  04.07.2015 at 10:34
Mores stupidity from modern feminism
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/tattoos-are-not-invitations/

And very interesting
http://whiteribbon.org/domestic-violence-research/the-corruption-of-research-on-domestic-violence/
Candlemass
Defaeco

Posts: 672
From: Israel

  05.07.2015 at 19:37
Always fun to watch:


Just in time after my quite usual rants ("lack of respect for empiricism"), Gary Edwards started a new video series named "The Empirical Left". How would the political left look like without being 'interpretive' i.e. wasted by what we call 'sociology faculty'?
----
Twelve Virtues of Rationality
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  07.07.2015 at 05:33
Written by Candlemass on 05.07.2015 at 19:37

Always fun to watch:


Just in time after my quite usual rants ("lack of respect for empiricism"), Gary Edwards started a new video series named "The Empirical Left". How would the political left look like without being 'interpretive' i.e. wasted by what we call 'sociology faculty'?


Laughing my ass off, thanks for these, they are great
IronAngel

Posts: 4523

Age: 26
From: Finland

  07.07.2015 at 12:47
Written by Rasputin on 04.07.2015 at 10:34

Mores stupidity from modern feminism
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/tattoos-are-not-invitations/


Her arguments here are overblown and thus unconvincing - "it's for me", "invading her time", whatever. But I don't see how the bottom line is stupid. It's just common courtesy: you should keep a respectful distance from people and only comment when it is natural and you genuinely think it is a welcome compliment. This applies to both men and women and is more about politeness than feminism, but if it is an especially common issue for a tattooed woman, it is good to be aware of that and take it into consideration. You don't need to lap up everything she says, but you should be grateful for any advice that helps you be a gentleman rather than a jerk.

Gary Edwards' channel seems interesting, gonna watch that Empirical Left playlist at some point.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  08.07.2015 at 19:48
Written by IronAngel on 07.07.2015 at 12:47

Written by Rasputin on 04.07.2015 at 10:34

Mores stupidity from modern feminism
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/tattoos-are-not-invitations/


Her arguments here are overblown and thus unconvincing - "it's for me", "invading her time", whatever. But I don't see how the bottom line is stupid. It's just common courtesy: you should keep a respectful distance from people and only comment when it is natural and you genuinely think it is a welcome compliment. This applies to both men and women and is more about politeness than feminism, but if it is an especially common issue for a tattooed woman, it is good to be aware of that and take it into consideration. You don't need to lap up everything she says, but you should be grateful for any advice that helps you be a gentleman rather than a jerk.

Gary Edwards' channel seems interesting, gonna watch that Empirical Left playlist at some point.

You cannot be a gentleman and be a feminist, or should I say, you cannot be a female feminist and accept a gentleman, because those are two mutually exclusive terms. Unlike Emma Watson, and her heforshe bullshit which is contrary to the current feminist ideals, feminists do not condone being a gentleman, because you guess it--Patriarchy, since it invades women's sense of agency and all that bullshit.

The article is just one of many that gets gobbled up on mainstream feminist sites, which later on result in asinine regulations and more topics to fight over. While I understand her view on people touching her and agreeing with her, the overall tone and topic of the article is anything but that, it clearly attempts to start more shit where we would chug this under another topic like manspreading, mansplaining, yesallmen and so on and so forth. Microagressions are new Feminist battlefields, which clearly demonstrates that now that equality has been reached they have nothing to complain about but bullshit. Just like the chick from the Candlemass's video said, "these are first world problems" which in essence are not problems, just stupidity. You have women in Islamic countries that are treated like garbage, Asia and EU with more sex trade, and quite a few other things, but who cares about that. Let's bitch about "eye rape" and rape culture that does not exist.
Candlemass
Defaeco

Posts: 672
From: Israel

  09.07.2015 at 21:52
If you're bad at formal thinking and at creative thinking and acting, you end up in sociology?

----
Twelve Virtues of Rationality
Candlemass
Defaeco

Posts: 672
From: Israel

  10.07.2015 at 18:27
Feminism vs Evolutionary biology? A Conversation with Prof Gad Saad, it's live.
----
Twelve Virtues of Rationality
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6578
From: Australia

  14.07.2015 at 09:53
Judging by even recent comments on MS by some posters, women's rights and equality still has a long way to go.
Ilham
Giant robot

Posts: 5003

Age: 26
From: Morocco

  14.07.2015 at 11:55
Written by deadone on 14.07.2015 at 09:53

Judging by even recent comments on MS by some posters, women's rights and equality still has a long way to go.

Yeah I saw that. I was kinda upset so I couldn't even bear going through the rest of the posts.
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6578
From: Australia

  15.07.2015 at 01:51
Written by Ilham on 14.07.2015 at 11:55

Written by deadone on 14.07.2015 at 09:53

Judging by even recent comments on MS by some posters, women's rights and equality still has a long way to go.

Yeah I saw that. I was kinda upset so I couldn't even bear going through the rest of the posts.



If it's maniacblasphemer on the Enabler thread then it gets worse. Dude's a piece of shit though it would appear his culture has engrained issues with this kind of thing (like many Eastern Europeans I've encountered including a lot from where I was born).
Ilham
Giant robot

Posts: 5003

Age: 26
From: Morocco

  15.07.2015 at 12:49
Written by deadone on 15.07.2015 at 01:51

If it's maniacblasphemer on the Enabler thread then it gets worse. Dude's a piece of shit though it would appear his culture has engrained issues with this kind of thing (like many Eastern Europeans I've encountered including a lot from where I was born).

Yeah that's the guy, I knew that if I kept on reading I'd have his bullshit circling in my head the whole day. It's not as if I don't have enough misogyny to deal with here.
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  22.07.2015 at 06:27
Http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech
Rasputin

Posts: 436
From: USA

  29.07.2015 at 10:57
Http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23529/

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 [23]


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
Serious discussions 2008 U.S. Presidential Election 3 13.08.2007 by Konrad
Serious discussions The Nuclear World - Problems and Politics 3 05.10.2006 by
Serious discussions Kosovo - new country at Balkan 3 19.02.2008 by EddieGunner
General forum They are killing, they are killing, they are killing in Tehran 2 28.12.2009 by
General forum Current situation in Gaza 2 31.12.2010 by Gurth Bennas