No sense of humor whatsoever ( the fellow above )…
Yeah, it’s strange of me to think that your joke reflected your actual beef with women, even if, well, that’s what jokes do: put in, hopefully, humorous form the actual desire and complaint. I should have realized you were just being randomly ‘funny’ and it had nothing to do with you. IRL I am sure you like being challenged by women you respect and can handle that.
Why not have the courage of your sense of humor? - weak or not is beside the point.
Oh, it was just a joke, when in fact the joke comes from you, it is what you want and believe. I don’t agree with or respect your position, but I respect it if you can accept it rather than gussy it up and deny it.
You want things a certain way and you just put it out there. Now here you are pretending you didn’t.
I love women; they are beautiful creatures. I just don’t like radical feminism, as it ruins both genders.
One problem I have with MGTOWs is that they will criticize female nature but rarely, if ever, mention if males succumb to similar behavior. I actually agree with that video series for the most part, but in one of Turd Flinging Monkey’s other videos, ‘She’ll never love you’, he says how females will never truly love males because all they care about in males are resources, and that males are capable of truly loving females because they are focused on them (their looks). So he concludes that if a female sees an opportunity to be with a man with more resources, perceived as alpha male, she will trade his previous male. What he ‘forgets’ to mention is that if male love is dependent on female looks, it’s not exactly unconditional either, God forbid the female gets into an accident which ruins her looks or gets old and the male has the resources to find a younger one. And yeah, also that not all, and perhaps even not most males/females are like that - most people develop emotional bonds over time which may overpower the female instinct to go for a more wealthy male or the male instinct to go for a younger, better looking female.
But hey, at least his criticism of feminism was spot on.
Sounds like you are not man enough to date a real woman on equal terms.
Where and when I achieved adulthood, it was understood that discrimination was not the way to go. Kids of my generation and in the place I was, took this for granted.
Things have gone downhill since then.- Mainly through weak men who are scared to deal on equal terms.
I think not.
There are men who have the courage of their convictions and will say - in jokes and also straight out - that what they want in a woman is a yes-man with tits and pussy. They want a servant/fan who does not give lip, who affirms and praises and lets them be. That seems like a terribly limited wish, but if it is the wish, it is minimally noble to be clear about it, and few can even if the smell of it is present.
Really? A happy woman would be a content woman with more of an open mind, one who sees more and further. Now that is just the kind of woman who could start a movement - perhaps just a different kind of movement - a more positive productive one.
The same goes for a man too.
Freddie was correct of course, often we do have to have chaos within us to give birth to a dancing star but that chaos doesn’t necessarily have to be negative or destructive… There were times when Freddie might have said more…
But is Horse-shit Feminism?
Only if it is brought to life and begins complaining about patriarchy and rape culture.
I have to disagree.
I think it is cow.
I see what you did there, James, “cow”… very clever
Feminism is NOT gay, because feminists have no sense of humor.
Ok serious post.
i think transhumanism is mostly a rubbish idea, but i dont think the concept, is entirely rubbish. I believe the humanapes can only evolve so further. i believe at this moment they are devolving into tards worldwide. therefore, augmentation may be required to further their evolution, to bridge the cycle of tides (human saga is a saga of devolution, then building the broken pieces all over again.)
I believe this quote is total rubbish. I suppose little kids play with legos, make art, creative things, to get suzie’s twat next door hmmm? No, creative genius is simply a masculine trait, the drive to build is seperate from the drive to procreate. it is a survival tactic, to build shelter and weapons, or provide for the family or community. Its not related to the mechanism of entering sarah’s twat. If anything women destroy male creativity by damaging his psychology, modern feminism makes the modern male feel unwanted unloved and entirely useless. Not a great climate for creative output, but due to the male’s resilient nature, he still builds, still creates, even in an oppressive, lonely climate (something most fragile, pathetic female brats cannot do.)
I say no to a lot of women. I am not a masculinist. I piss on ismists. I would never fuck a feminist. I would not get my cucumber on the rise. They are the most sodden and humorless scurryings on the planet.
The male need to differentiate oneself from women is to procreate with them to expand self-possibilities, self-prolongation into the maximum future…if the male is not a unit first, how will he get selected when women evolved to sense and select for wholesomeness, and strong patterns of individuality?
This thread is interesting, because most of the serious participants are descriptively feminist by many definitions of the term, and yet here they are, almost to a person, criticizing feminism. Likely much of the debate between feminists and anti-feminists is actually between supporters of small-f, descriptive feminism, and detractors from big-F, political Feminism.
Case in point. ‘Women should be allowed to drive a car and vote’ is widely accepted now, as a result of organized feminist (small-f) movements. To the extent it spreads to places where it’s not currently taken for granted, it will be spread by organized feminist (small-f) movements.
The use of ‘people’ here is interesting. Certainly it seems that most of the ‘people’ in this thread are using ‘feminism’ to mean “crazy extreme stuff [they’re] all mostly tired of hearing about”. But probably most of the people who use feminism don’t mean anything like that (it is, after all, highly likely that the majority of people using the word feminism are self-identified feminists).
And you probably agree with the sentiment behind many, if not most uses of the word ‘feminist/ism’ too, as do most of the people in this thread criticizing feminism. You’re focusing on the vocal minority of extreme gender theory feminists, but there are plenty of moderate feminists who are still mostly talking about allowing women in the middle east to drive and divorce abusive husbands and feel the sun on their cheeks without being stoned to death.
You might not want to call what they do feminism, but if we define feminism as support for those social changes, virtually everyone here is a feminist (and many Feminists mean just that when they so identify themselves).
I think there’s a reasonable middle ground on this question. First, It’s worth clarifying that what you’re talking about is still the liberal wing of the liberal wing of liberal academia. This isn’t even mainstream feminism, and it’s certainly not all Feminists (there are plenty of anti-trans feminists).
Second, the middle ground position is that there are overlapping bell curves, which is demonstrably true. Both physically and psychologically, whatever traits tend across the entire population to be associated with one set of genitals are not so closely associated that knowing what set of genitals a person has will tell you much of anything about what to expect in terms of individual physical and psychological traits.
There are also outliers, edge cases that aren’t well captured by the strict dichotomy between men and women. There are edge cases between physically male and physically female. Even at the level of chromosomes, some people have three chromosomes, two Xs and a Y, and they tend to display physical characteristics that are a combination of male-like and female-like traits. That grouping doesn’t fit neatly into a men/women dichotomy.
We can certainly say that the dichotomy is good enough for most situations, and can be meaningfully applied in most situations. But there are some situations where it is too blunt, and there are some people who will be excluded by such language and overstated conceptual parsing of the world.
No one is forcing you to change your language, no one should, but if you know that the way you’re speaking is going to hurt someone who has done nothing to deserve to be hurt, and it costs you little to change the way you speak, shouldn’t you? We can quibble about how much it costs to change the way you speak, and how much it hurts the people you’re hurting, but certainly we can imagine some situations where it is the humane thing to do to accommodate the existence of not-quite male, not-quite-female people.
The extent you want to generalize from that point is also something that can also be quibbled about (if sexuality is genetically determined separate from biologic sex, maybe it’s worth accommodating those people as well). But I don’t think any of this is particularly radical.