Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[La Dolce Vita]

Feminists protest against men's center at university being established and succeed.
A center designed to help male students with issues

 

[Santana]

View attachment 154464
Too true.

Is that Hope Solo? Wouldn't be the first time she has become violent I guess.



And also why the USA Women's team winning the WC would upset men in that country is beyond me. Everyone who has a clue knows you can't compare the two world cups. Winning the Men's WC is the ultimate.

 

[Maggie5]

You're not an egalitarian at all.

Please show where anyone has suggested that both men and women should not get help when needed.

I think you and I may as well discuss between ourselves.
Not much point if you keep asking questions of another poster and they respond with another rant or more bloody videos, what a waste of energy. I don't bother watching them because it will only be supporting the posters biased point of view. It won't be exactly thought provoking.

I am still waiting to read DA's response to what her female friends think of his/her views as reading her/his posts she/he seems to despise females.

 

[tesseract]

Please show where anyone has suggested that both men and women should not get help when needed.

You, in typical feminist fashion, have attempted to re-frame the conversation in an attempt to put women's issues front and centre when men's issues have been raised ITT. Here's an example of it:

Post#535: Was interesting to hear DV being discussed with the police on ABC Newsradio this evening - yhe female presenter/reporter was quite forward in asking leading questions and insisting that the female was the victim automatically, whereas the cop made it quite clear that often they are not the victim and the police's priority is for the safety of all involved, not just the women. Was quite a strange report as she kept focusing on women and children being the only victims of DV despite most responses from the cop saying the complete opposite lol

Post#536: I'm utterly shocked a media outlet was angling for a story
Doesn't that assure you, that the people who should know this, do
Doesn't that assure you that police are aware all can be victims.....
& yet the numbers are still skewed to women being victims.

Your implication here is that the issue of violence against men is secondary to that of violence against women because, as you state, "the numbers are still skewed to women being victims". So, you're not saying that men shouldn't get help, you simply imply that women should be prioritized due to being victims more. What your implication suggests isn't equality - which contradicts feminist rhetoric of standing for equality. So, when you say "Please show where anyone has suggested that both men and women should not get help when needed" exemplifies the typical feminist sophistry attempting to deflect from the stance of prioritizing women's aid at the expense and relegation of men's aid. This is an example of you, a feminist, paying only lip service to 'equality'.

 

[Maggie5]

No, for the typical feminist ignores male feelings due to their contempt for them, while the attitude displayed by Jones is more that of a traditionalist, for it's the male traditionalist's gynocentrism that puts his own needs last. Hence why I've previously stated that while feminism and traditionalism oppose each other ideologically, they're both two sides of the same coin in their inherent gynocentric attitudes.

Thought you didn't believe in 'feelings'?

 

[Maggie5]

You, in typical feminist fashion, have attempted to re-frame the conversation in an attempt to put women's issues front and centre when men's issues have been raised ITT. Here's an example of it:
Your implication here is that the issue of violence against men is secondary to that of violence against women because, as you state, "the numbers are still skewed to women being victims". So, you're not saying that men shouldn't get help, you simply imply that women should be prioritized due to being victims more. What your implication suggests isn't equality - which contradicts feminist rhetoric of standing for equality. So, when you say "Please show where anyone has suggested that both men and women should not get help when needed" exemplifies the typical feminist sophistry attempting to deflect from the stance of prioritizing women's aid at the expense and relegation of men's aid. This is an example of you, a feminist, paying only lip service to 'equality'.

"Your implication here..." Are you into mind reading as well?
Hey cartwright, just respond with a blank reply post as Tess knows what you mean to say.

 

[cartwright]

"Your implication here..." Are you into mind reading as well?
Hey cartwright, just respond with a blank reply post as Tess knows what you mean to say.

I'm hardly surprised he interpreted that post in that fashion. It's what extremists do.

 

[cartwright]

I think you and I may as well discuss between ourselves.
Not much point if you keep asking questions of another poster and they respond with another rant or more bloody videos, what a waste of energy. I don't bother watching them because it will only be supporting the posters biased point of view. It won't be exactly thought provoking.

I am still waiting to read DA's response to what her female friends think of his/her views as reading her/his posts she/he seems to despise females.

I think I've watched one video tess has posted.
I'm simply never interested in extreme opinions, which his is.

I'm still wondering what he thought GitHub was. I'm quite curious, seeing the amount of followers it had seemed to imply it's level of importance to him. Odd.

 

[tesseract]

Thought you didn't believe in 'feelings'?

Comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours if that's what you've garnered from my posts.

 

[tesseract]

"Your implication here..." Are you into mind reading as well?

Yes, for surely everyone knows that understanding what's implied can only be done by means of reading minds.

 

[Maggie5]

Yes, for surely everyone knows that understanding what's implied can only be done by means of reading minds.

True, it may be just a feeling about what they are trying to express. HaHa

Ha, I think maybe you are a closet feminist or just envious of them.

Videos and obscure links monotonously, you really are wasting your time as I don't click on any of them and doubt that any reasonable, free thinking poster would.

 

[Chief]

Yep combat deaths, suicide, homocide, industrial death and fatherhood are irrelevant.

Best concentrate on the real issues like men taking up space on public transport

Totes.

 

[skilts]

Or if you want to be listened to make sure you are ugly?

It is for this reason that all people pay such rapt attention to my every utterance. All except me that is.

 

[Maggie5]

It is for this reason that all people pay such rapt attention to my every utterance. All except me that is.

Don't believe it.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

This thread has degenerated (debatable in itself) into an absolute load of crap.

Time for some of you to brush up on the site and board rules.

Stay on topic, within the rules, and away from the personal attacks.

The thread really needs to be closed and split up into a bunch of smaller threads about specific topics. i.e.

-Gender wage gap thread
-domestic violence thread
-affirmative action thread
-etc

This way it would force posters to remain on topic, rather than going into long winded anti/pro-feminist rants. Any attempt to go into long winded rants about patriarchy would need to be kept on topic, and it would prevent people from dismissing posters as "woman haters" if they were forced to remain on topic.

Plus, it would allow us to discuss topics were interested in. I find the gender wage gap topic interesting, but don't really want to wade through pages of domestic violence talk or crap about the patriarchy.

 

[Chief]

But we don't want the crazies to spread to other threads

 

[cartwright]

The thread really needs to be closed and split up into a bunch of smaller threads about specific topics. i.e.

-Gender wage gap thread
-domestic violence thread
-affirmative action thread
-etc

This way it would force posters to remain on topic, rather than going into long winded anti/pro-feminist rants. Any attempt to go into long winded rants about patriarchy would need to be kept on topic, and it would prevent people from dismissing posters as "woman haters" if they were forced to remain on topic.

Plus, it would allow us to discuss topics were interested in. I find the gender wage gap topic interesting, but don't really want to wade through pages of domestic violence talk or crap about the patriarchy.

What rants about the patriarchy?

I find it interesting that on a forum dominated by men, there's not one thread on men's issues but a few that rant against women .

 

[Maggie5]

What rants about the patriarchy?

I find it interesting that on a forum dominated by men, there's not one thread on men's issues but a few that rant against women .

Great idea, a separate thread on men's issues would be very interesting.

 

[Qsaint]

Great idea, a separate thread on men's issues would be very interesting.

After 260 pages there can't be any more feminist myths left anyway

 

[skilts]

After 260 pages there can't be any more feminist myths left anyway

You've mythed the point.

 

[Maggie5]

After 260 pages there can't be any more feminist myths left anyway

I still don't know what they are, even after 260 pages.

 

[Qsaint]

You've mythed the point.

Obviously maybe its because I have drunk too much, tastes crap but it does help the greek economy

 

[tesseract]

True, it may be just a feeling about what they are trying to express. HaHa

"it may just be a feeling"? Or it may not. Now you're spouting words for the sake of it, for your comment isn't really saying anything.

Ha, I think maybe you are a closet feminist or just envious of them.

This comment of yours is projection, for feminism is penis envy!

Videos and obscure links monotonously, you really are wasting your time as I don't click on any of them and doubt that any reasonable, free thinking poster would.

Your assumption is that I post what I do for your benefit. You've just displayed how self-centred you are. I'm already aware that you can't change the minds of dogmatic ideologues, aka feminists, for their brainwashing/indoctrination is thorough.

 

[tesseract]

The thread really needs to be closed and split up into a bunch of smaller threads about specific topics. i.e.

-Gender wage gap thread
-domestic violence thread
-affirmative action thread
-etc

This way it would force posters to remain on topic, rather than going into long winded anti/pro-feminist rants. Any attempt to go into long winded rants about patriarchy would need to be kept on topic, and it would prevent people from dismissing posters as "woman haters" if they were forced to remain on topic.

Plus, it would allow us to discuss topics were interested in. I find the gender wage gap topic interesting, but don't really want to wade through pages of domestic violence talk or crap about the patriarchy.

You've just provided reason, yet Chief dismisses such reason and opts for a feelings and ideological-based response. The SJW and feminists, for example, are attempting to supplant the modern age of reason for the post-modern age of reverting back from such with their feelings and feelings-based ideological approach. Feminism is said to be progressive, yet it's regressive in its lack of appreciation, and oftentimes outright dismissal of, reason, rationality, logic and evidence. Progression to these ideologues is the tearing down of western cultural precepts.

 

[Gough]

You're just scared of progress knowing that if it was a truly level playing field you wouldn't even come close to cutting it. Dress it up however you like, but you're a loser.