The problem with feminists today
Equal rights implies equal responsibility and accountability.
Leadership is a position of power.
Exercise of power necessarily attracts criticism.
A good leader must be able to take criticism well without becoming defensive or insecure.
Therefore, a good female leader must be able to take criticism well, without becoming defensive or insecure, just as well as a male leader, if she is to be equally qualified as a good leader.
Is this a feminist or an anti-feminist stance?
Anyway, here is my beef with a lot of modern feminism. How I see feminism used today is a "bitch insurrection". You get insecure, catty, game-playing, aggressive, manipulative women who feel entitled to power over others, despite their inability to take criticism, despite their penchant for playing games and being dishonest.
"Dammit! I'm equal! I DESERVE as much power over others as a man!"
No, my little histrionic shrew, you do not. You have to EARN the right on merit.
If you are insecure and cannot take criticism, if you cannot deal directly, if you play games - you are not qualified for leadership. Period. You are not entitled to have a pass on such crappy behaviour because vagina, and then get handed a position of leadership anyway.
The kind of person who deflects legitimate criticism of female game-playing behaviour by accusing the critic of misogyny, whether directly or via innuendo, is one of the least qualified for leadership. And I would place many self-identified feminist women I have encountered on the Internet in that category.
Leadership must be meritocratic. It doesn't matter what you have between the legs if you have the merit. If you lack the merit, it doesn't matter what you have between the legs, you do not deserve a leadership position. Period. Power must be earned on merit. Respect is earned.
Histrionic women are some of the least qualified for power over others, in my assessment. And in my consistent experience, it is precisely this type who tends to latch onto feminism and develop a full blown sense of entitlement to power over others. Playing the victim (as they victimise others with their game-playing, manipulative treachery), crying "sexism" (while being sexist against men), whining about "male privilege" (while being wilfully blind to their own privilege as a woman), whining about an oppressive "patriarchy" (while they'd prefer an oppressive matriarchy).
Blind to the fact that it's their behaviour, not their gender, which leads others to look down upon them. Angry at the world, they just want power, which they'd be happy to abuse to punish anyone who gives them legitimate criticism due to their desperate insecurity. ("It's because you hate women, isn't it?")
If this is feminism, then count me out. Sure, some women make excellent leaders. But the majority of self-identified feminist women I've seen? No. A fully developed sense of entitlement coupled with a victim mentality are not the traits of a good leader.
If this is you, then take comfort. I don't see you as disqualified for leadership positions because you have a vagina. I see you as disqualified for leadership positions because you are disqualified for leadership positions. Please try to understand the difference, thanks. Some people who are for gender equality can see through hypocrisy.
Leadership is a position of power.
Exercise of power necessarily attracts criticism.
A good leader must be able to take criticism well without becoming defensive or insecure.
Therefore, a good female leader must be able to take criticism well, without becoming defensive or insecure, just as well as a male leader, if she is to be equally qualified as a good leader.
Is this a feminist or an anti-feminist stance?
Anyway, here is my beef with a lot of modern feminism. How I see feminism used today is a "bitch insurrection". You get insecure, catty, game-playing, aggressive, manipulative women who feel entitled to power over others, despite their inability to take criticism, despite their penchant for playing games and being dishonest.
"Dammit! I'm equal! I DESERVE as much power over others as a man!"
No, my little histrionic shrew, you do not. You have to EARN the right on merit.
If you are insecure and cannot take criticism, if you cannot deal directly, if you play games - you are not qualified for leadership. Period. You are not entitled to have a pass on such crappy behaviour because vagina, and then get handed a position of leadership anyway.
The kind of person who deflects legitimate criticism of female game-playing behaviour by accusing the critic of misogyny, whether directly or via innuendo, is one of the least qualified for leadership. And I would place many self-identified feminist women I have encountered on the Internet in that category.
Leadership must be meritocratic. It doesn't matter what you have between the legs if you have the merit. If you lack the merit, it doesn't matter what you have between the legs, you do not deserve a leadership position. Period. Power must be earned on merit. Respect is earned.
Histrionic women are some of the least qualified for power over others, in my assessment. And in my consistent experience, it is precisely this type who tends to latch onto feminism and develop a full blown sense of entitlement to power over others. Playing the victim (as they victimise others with their game-playing, manipulative treachery), crying "sexism" (while being sexist against men), whining about "male privilege" (while being wilfully blind to their own privilege as a woman), whining about an oppressive "patriarchy" (while they'd prefer an oppressive matriarchy).
Blind to the fact that it's their behaviour, not their gender, which leads others to look down upon them. Angry at the world, they just want power, which they'd be happy to abuse to punish anyone who gives them legitimate criticism due to their desperate insecurity. ("It's because you hate women, isn't it?")
If this is feminism, then count me out. Sure, some women make excellent leaders. But the majority of self-identified feminist women I've seen? No. A fully developed sense of entitlement coupled with a victim mentality are not the traits of a good leader.
If this is you, then take comfort. I don't see you as disqualified for leadership positions because you have a vagina. I see you as disqualified for leadership positions because you are disqualified for leadership positions. Please try to understand the difference, thanks. Some people who are for gender equality can see through hypocrisy.
(edited 8 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
its just another form of the leftist movement that ruined the family unit and society in general
Absolutely.
The problems is faux feminists want to have their cake and eat it. It's equality and leading authority looling down on the boses of betas until **** hits the fan, then it's the victim card and guilt tripping men into white knighting as per their 'expected' role. The idea that men are not owed women's attention, not even the time of day, but women are owed continuous compensation for the chauvinism of pre-suffrage days even by Millennial men-and the latter is enforced legally, institutionally as one way obligations.
Sadly I've found in general.that a woman's raw SMV (that is youth beauty fertility) is intimately linked to her endorsement of traditional gender roles, benevolent sexism, faux third wave feminism and rationalisation of hypergamy, which in non-gendered terms translates into narcissism. This may help to explain why women are so much more compassiomate towards men post-Wall. The correlation applies to feminists too.
However, some feminists do accept equal accountability, though they are rare, as do attractive women, though they are rarer.
The problems is faux feminists want to have their cake and eat it. It's equality and leading authority looling down on the boses of betas until **** hits the fan, then it's the victim card and guilt tripping men into white knighting as per their 'expected' role. The idea that men are not owed women's attention, not even the time of day, but women are owed continuous compensation for the chauvinism of pre-suffrage days even by Millennial men-and the latter is enforced legally, institutionally as one way obligations.
Sadly I've found in general.that a woman's raw SMV (that is youth beauty fertility) is intimately linked to her endorsement of traditional gender roles, benevolent sexism, faux third wave feminism and rationalisation of hypergamy, which in non-gendered terms translates into narcissism. This may help to explain why women are so much more compassiomate towards men post-Wall. The correlation applies to feminists too.
However, some feminists do accept equal accountability, though they are rare, as do attractive women, though they are rarer.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
Absolutely.
The problems is faux feminists want to have their cake and eat it. It's equality and leading authority looling down on the boses of betas until **** hits the fan, then it's the victim card and guilt tripping men into white knighting as per their 'expected' role. The idea that men are not owed women's attention, not even the time of day, but women are owed continuous compensation for the chauvinism of pre-suffrage days even by Millennial men-and the latter is enforced legally, institutionally as one way obligations.
Sadly I've found in general.that a woman's raw SMV (that is youth beauty fertility) is intimately linked to her endorsement of traditional gender roles, benevolent sexism, faux third wave feminism and rationalisation of hypergamy, which in non-gendered terms translates into narcissism. This may help to explain why women are so much more compassiomate towards men post-Wall. The correlation applies to feminists too.
However, some feminists do accept equal accountability, though they are rare, as do attractive women, though they are rarer.
The problems is faux feminists want to have their cake and eat it. It's equality and leading authority looling down on the boses of betas until **** hits the fan, then it's the victim card and guilt tripping men into white knighting as per their 'expected' role. The idea that men are not owed women's attention, not even the time of day, but women are owed continuous compensation for the chauvinism of pre-suffrage days even by Millennial men-and the latter is enforced legally, institutionally as one way obligations.
Sadly I've found in general.that a woman's raw SMV (that is youth beauty fertility) is intimately linked to her endorsement of traditional gender roles, benevolent sexism, faux third wave feminism and rationalisation of hypergamy, which in non-gendered terms translates into narcissism. This may help to explain why women are so much more compassiomate towards men post-Wall. The correlation applies to feminists too.
However, some feminists do accept equal accountability, though they are rare, as do attractive women, though they are rarer.
PRSOM.
Original post by Mequa
PRSOM.
I don't know why we bother preaching on a forum full of kiddies bro
http://elitedaily.com/dating/men-pssies-women-need-start-asking-men-dates/746965/
I sense the threads have been boycotted. Typing response to now locked thread
Woman blames her lack of dating success on men. Gets to write an article on it stating.it's because men these days are weak pussies (yes she uses the word pussy), scared lazy manchildren afraid to 'man up' and initiate like 'real men' do, and later to commit. (Apparently we are just bona fide failures at commitment guys)
Article is a hit. Millions read it and agree with it. Author is a leading writer for Elite Daily, an extremely popular blog about life for the Millennial generation.
Another example: the sheer anti-male vitriol on the Guardian.
When people with bigoted and dumb opinions have power over the media to shape not just an ideology but the law and social policy, Houston we have a problem.
Reverse scenario. Man blames his lack of dating success-nay anyone saying HELLO to him in a club-on British women. Of course not sensible. This thread's 'bitter virgin' shaming tactics are second nature to use in response these days.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2842761
I sense the threads have been boycotted. Typing response to now locked thread
Woman blames her lack of dating success on men. Gets to write an article on it stating.it's because men these days are weak pussies (yes she uses the word pussy), scared lazy manchildren afraid to 'man up' and initiate like 'real men' do, and later to commit. (Apparently we are just bona fide failures at commitment guys)
Article is a hit. Millions read it and agree with it. Author is a leading writer for Elite Daily, an extremely popular blog about life for the Millennial generation.
Another example: the sheer anti-male vitriol on the Guardian.
When people with bigoted and dumb opinions have power over the media to shape not just an ideology but the law and social policy, Houston we have a problem.
Reverse scenario. Man blames his lack of dating success-nay anyone saying HELLO to him in a club-on British women. Of course not sensible. This thread's 'bitter virgin' shaming tactics are second nature to use in response these days.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2842761
Response to the quote in previous thread:
I didn't mention feminism in my post. I said if you're claiming you are perfect and the problem lies with 32 million people, you're probably just the problem. Go back and read what I typed (and what you quoted).
Do you deny this? Yes or no, simple answer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I didn't mention feminism in my post. I said if you're claiming you are perfect and the problem lies with 32 million people, you're probably just the problem. Go back and read what I typed (and what you quoted).
Do you deny this? Yes or no, simple answer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by xloichan
Response to the quote in previous thread:
I didn't mention feminism in my post. I said if you're claiming you are perfect and the problem lies with 32 million people, you're probably just the problem. Go back and read what I typed (and what you quoted).
Do you deny this? Yes or no, simple answer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I didn't mention feminism in my post. I said if you're claiming you are perfect and the problem lies with 32 million people, you're probably just the problem. Go back and read what I typed (and what you quoted).
Do you deny this? Yes or no, simple answer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Straw man, we didn't claim we were perfect, we claimed we were upset that we are not granted a hello or goodbye. The reverse (man ignored woman) is deemed extremely rude.
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
Straw man, we didn't claim we were perfect, we claimed we were upset that we are not granted a hello or goodbye. The reverse (man ignored woman) is deemed extremely rude.
What are you on about?
Scrotgrot typed:
"It is a legitimate question for someone to ask why no women will have sex with him. A man who is good-looking, relatively successful, intelligent, funny, good social skills, high social proof and so forth can reasonably expect that some women will want to have sex with him. That is not pointing at an individual woman and saying, "Why won't she have sex with me?", it's looking at a few years' worth of data and saying, "Why won't anyone have sex with me, given my assessment of my own value?
If women all seem to be rejecting him, and he can't see that there's anything he's doing wrong, he must infer that there is some characteristic of British women that makes them more demanding - particularly if he does fine in other countries.
If there is a systemic problem with British women not wanting to have sex with British men, we must investigate why it is that British women do not want to have sex with British men. This may be a failing or an entitlement on the part of men, women, or both.
Plainly, men and women are made to have sex with each other, so if they are not doing that to the point where it is a major social problem, there is some aberration which ought to be investigated. We cannot investigate without asking why women make the decisions they do.
We need not grill any individual woman on why she did not want to have sex with any individual man - though I don't see why doing so would be indicative of a male entitlement to sex. Surely women can put their finger on why they turn a given man down, hopefully slightly more reflective, insightful - and maybe even self-critical - than "he's creepy" or "he's ugly".
Immediately shutting down any enquiries on the topic with a combative "well maybe British women just don't want to, and what right do you have to demand an explanation?" is unnecessarily unhelpful and obstinate. We are trying to have a debate here, not oppress you with our evil male chauvinist pig egos. The take-home message is, "Get over yourself.""
To which I responded:
"This post is hilarious.
If no one wants to have sex with you, the problem is clearly with you.
Are you actually saying if someone can't get laid then the problem is 32 million other human beings and not just that person? Hahahahaha"
You then quoted me and started talking nonsense about 'faux feminist logic'.
Can you actually argue against the arguments people are making rather than just typing irrelevant walls of text? Would make everyone's life easier.
Do you or do you not agree that if one person has a personal issue with half the population of a given country, the problem is likely to lie with that person rather than the rest of the population? I literally just need a yes or no from you.
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
http://elitedaily.com/dating/men-pssies-women-need-start-asking-men-dates/746965/
I sense the threads have been boycotted. Typing response to now locked thread
Woman blames her lack of dating success on men. Gets to write an article on it stating.it's because men these days are weak pussies (yes she uses the word pussy), scared lazy manchildren afraid to 'man up' and initiate like 'real men' do, and later to commit. (Apparently we are just bona fide failures at commitment guys)
Article is a hit. Millions read it and agree with it. Author is a leading writer for Elite Daily, an extremely popular blog about life for the Millennial generation.
Another example: the sheer anti-male vitriol on the Guardian.
When people with bigoted and dumb opinions have power over the media to shape not just an ideology but the law and social policy, Houston we have a problem.
Reverse scenario. Man blames his lack of dating success-nay anyone saying HELLO to him in a club-on British women. Of course not sensible. This thread's 'bitter virgin' shaming tactics are second nature to use in response these days.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2842761
I sense the threads have been boycotted. Typing response to now locked thread
Woman blames her lack of dating success on men. Gets to write an article on it stating.it's because men these days are weak pussies (yes she uses the word pussy), scared lazy manchildren afraid to 'man up' and initiate like 'real men' do, and later to commit. (Apparently we are just bona fide failures at commitment guys)
Article is a hit. Millions read it and agree with it. Author is a leading writer for Elite Daily, an extremely popular blog about life for the Millennial generation.
Another example: the sheer anti-male vitriol on the Guardian.
When people with bigoted and dumb opinions have power over the media to shape not just an ideology but the law and social policy, Houston we have a problem.
Reverse scenario. Man blames his lack of dating success-nay anyone saying HELLO to him in a club-on British women. Of course not sensible. This thread's 'bitter virgin' shaming tactics are second nature to use in response these days.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2842761
Well, the Guardian is just anti-Western Culture; it would much rather we had 100% diversity under Sharia Law (100% diversity means 0% whitey, 10% men, for breeding purposes only)
The problem with feminism isn't just the modern waves of feminism, and I think this is the problem a lot of people make. "oh, I support REAL feminism, but not this crazy THIRD WAVE feminism!" - what has changed, really? It's a Marxist premise, that we are all equal and we are all human, and feminists ran with it to great effect. The refutation of feminism must come from a counter-premise that a majority can get behind. Stooping to their level and claiming men are oppressed by women is a continuation of playing up to Marx's power-binary crap. No, it must be argued that equality is an impossible myth without absolute totalitarianism and reorganisation on all levels of society. You say this to any sane man and it will all fall in to place.
Unfortunately, the propaganda of the Marxists spread much further and faster than proponents of liberty.
Original post by xloichan
What are you on about?
Scrotgrot typed:
"It is a legitimate question for someone to ask why no women will have sex with him. A man who is good-looking, relatively successful, intelligent, funny, good social skills, high social proof and so forth can reasonably expect that some women will want to have sex with him. That is not pointing at an individual woman and saying, "Why won't she have sex with me?", it's looking at a few years' worth of data and saying, "Why won't anyone have sex with me, given my assessment of my own value?
If women all seem to be rejecting him, and he can't see that there's anything he's doing wrong, he must infer that there is some characteristic of British women that makes them more demanding - particularly if he does fine in other countries.
If there is a systemic problem with British women not wanting to have sex with British men, we must investigate why it is that British women do not want to have sex with British men. This may be a failing or an entitlement on the part of men, women, or both.
Plainly, men and women are made to have sex with each other, so if they are not doing that to the point where it is a major social problem, there is some aberration which ought to be investigated. We cannot investigate without asking why women make the decisions they do.
We need not grill any individual woman on why she did not want to have sex with any individual man - though I don't see why doing so would be indicative of a male entitlement to sex. Surely women can put their finger on why they turn a given man down, hopefully slightly more reflective, insightful - and maybe even self-critical - than "he's creepy" or "he's ugly".
Immediately shutting down any enquiries on the topic with a combative "well maybe British women just don't want to, and what right do you have to demand an explanation?" is unnecessarily unhelpful and obstinate. We are trying to have a debate here, not oppress you with our evil male chauvinist pig egos. The take-home message is, "Get over yourself.""
To which I responded:
"This post is hilarious.
If no one wants to have sex with you, the problem is clearly with you.
Are you actually saying if someone can't get laid then the problem is 32 million other human beings and not just that person? Hahahahaha"
You then quoted me and started talking nonsense about 'faux feminist logic'.
Can you actually argue against the arguments people are making rather than just typing irrelevant walls of text? Would make everyone's life easier.
Do you or do you not agree that if one person has a personal issue with half the population of a given country, the problem is likely to lie with that person rather than the rest of the population? I literally just need a yes or no from you.
Scrotgrot typed:
"It is a legitimate question for someone to ask why no women will have sex with him. A man who is good-looking, relatively successful, intelligent, funny, good social skills, high social proof and so forth can reasonably expect that some women will want to have sex with him. That is not pointing at an individual woman and saying, "Why won't she have sex with me?", it's looking at a few years' worth of data and saying, "Why won't anyone have sex with me, given my assessment of my own value?
If women all seem to be rejecting him, and he can't see that there's anything he's doing wrong, he must infer that there is some characteristic of British women that makes them more demanding - particularly if he does fine in other countries.
If there is a systemic problem with British women not wanting to have sex with British men, we must investigate why it is that British women do not want to have sex with British men. This may be a failing or an entitlement on the part of men, women, or both.
Plainly, men and women are made to have sex with each other, so if they are not doing that to the point where it is a major social problem, there is some aberration which ought to be investigated. We cannot investigate without asking why women make the decisions they do.
We need not grill any individual woman on why she did not want to have sex with any individual man - though I don't see why doing so would be indicative of a male entitlement to sex. Surely women can put their finger on why they turn a given man down, hopefully slightly more reflective, insightful - and maybe even self-critical - than "he's creepy" or "he's ugly".
Immediately shutting down any enquiries on the topic with a combative "well maybe British women just don't want to, and what right do you have to demand an explanation?" is unnecessarily unhelpful and obstinate. We are trying to have a debate here, not oppress you with our evil male chauvinist pig egos. The take-home message is, "Get over yourself.""
To which I responded:
"This post is hilarious.
If no one wants to have sex with you, the problem is clearly with you.
Are you actually saying if someone can't get laid then the problem is 32 million other human beings and not just that person? Hahahahaha"
You then quoted me and started talking nonsense about 'faux feminist logic'.
Can you actually argue against the arguments people are making rather than just typing irrelevant walls of text? Would make everyone's life easier.
Do you or do you not agree that if one person has a personal issue with half the population of a given country, the problem is likely to lie with that person rather than the rest of the population? I literally just need a yes or no from you.
Neither agree nor disagree with either of you...
I will say that the currrent feminjst trend is to get men to blame themsrlves for everything. A recent article on Psychology Today: 'if your wife cheats on you, consider that you may have failef to fulfil certain needs'
You want me to say
'I am constantly ignored anf rejected>it's all my fault->lower3d self esteem->oh bow ai'm insecure, Also my fault
Until
'I will become better and blame no one but myself if I am ignored or rejected->become better->women start condescending to say hello
Ergo faux feminist logic-your logic-justifies hypergamy (women dating/marrying up/generally not associating with men they consider beneath them)
you wouldn't be the first to state this.
Now listen, here's the problem.
A) men are socialised to believe their attractiveness to women is intimately linked to their value as a human being
b) women are socialisef to believe men do not deserve to be looked in the eye, and what was previously a basic courtesy as one human being to another is now a mark of entitlement ie latent misogyny. Men have to EARN women's respect ie attention (even trivial like exchabging pleasantries)
c) men are socialised to believe that to earn their social value they have to perform for women, impress them
men affected by this are going 2 ways
1-those who are ignored, blame themselves and have their self esteem lowered. Sometimes they become depressed, sometimes even commit suicide
2-those who are ignored, blame thenselves but 'man up' and pander to women's whims to become higher value men-the alpha/beta theory
3-those who are ignored, openly criticise society for this too and are further ostracised and belittled by women
It is a SOCIALproblem so women are not to blame per se nor are men, but each have their responsibility to end the behaviour.
Of course the mistake scrotgrot made to give you bait wad geberalisation. I would agree however there IS a trend to assume men are entitled and use that against him
I speak for the issue of not being owed time or attention, as even I agree women don't owe men anything sexual or emotiinally intimate.
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
Neither agree nor disagree with either of you...
I will say that the currrent feminjst trend is to get men to blame themsrlves for everything. A recent article on Psychology Today: 'if your wife cheats on you, consider that you may have failef to fulfil certain needs'
You want me to say
'I am constantly ignored anf rejected>it's all my fault->lower3d self esteem->oh bow ai'm insecure, Also my fault
Until
'I will become better and blame no one but myself if I am ignored or rejected->become better->women start condescending to say hello
Ergo faux feminist logic-your logic-justifies hypergamy (women dating/marrying up/generally not associating with men they consider beneath them)
you wouldn't be the first to state this.
Now listen, here's the problem.
A) men are socialised to believe their attractiveness to women is intimately linked to their value as a human being
b) women are socialisef to believe men do not deserve to be looked in the eye, and what was previously a basic courtesy as one human being to another is now a mark of entitlement ie latent misogyny. Men have to EARN women's respect ie attention (even trivial like exchabging pleasantries)
c) men are socialised to believe that to earn their social value they have to perform for women, impress them
men affected by this are going 2 ways
1-those who are ignored, blame themselves and have their self esteem lowered. Sometimes they become depressed, sometimes even commit suicide
2-those who are ignored, blame thenselves but 'man up' and pander to women's whims to become higher value men-the alpha/beta theory
3-those who are ignored, openly criticise society for this too and are further ostracised and belittled by women
It is a SOCIALproblem so women are not to blame per se nor are men, but each have their responsibility to end the behaviour.
Of course the mistake scrotgrot made to give you bait wad geberalisation. I would agree however there IS a trend to assume men are entitled and use that against him
I speak for the issue of not being owed time or attention, as even I agree women don't owe men anything sexual or emotiinally intimate.
I will say that the currrent feminjst trend is to get men to blame themsrlves for everything. A recent article on Psychology Today: 'if your wife cheats on you, consider that you may have failef to fulfil certain needs'
You want me to say
'I am constantly ignored anf rejected>it's all my fault->lower3d self esteem->oh bow ai'm insecure, Also my fault
Until
'I will become better and blame no one but myself if I am ignored or rejected->become better->women start condescending to say hello
Ergo faux feminist logic-your logic-justifies hypergamy (women dating/marrying up/generally not associating with men they consider beneath them)
you wouldn't be the first to state this.
Now listen, here's the problem.
A) men are socialised to believe their attractiveness to women is intimately linked to their value as a human being
b) women are socialisef to believe men do not deserve to be looked in the eye, and what was previously a basic courtesy as one human being to another is now a mark of entitlement ie latent misogyny. Men have to EARN women's respect ie attention (even trivial like exchabging pleasantries)
c) men are socialised to believe that to earn their social value they have to perform for women, impress them
men affected by this are going 2 ways
1-those who are ignored, blame themselves and have their self esteem lowered. Sometimes they become depressed, sometimes even commit suicide
2-those who are ignored, blame thenselves but 'man up' and pander to women's whims to become higher value men-the alpha/beta theory
3-those who are ignored, openly criticise society for this too and are further ostracised and belittled by women
It is a SOCIALproblem so women are not to blame per se nor are men, but each have their responsibility to end the behaviour.
Of course the mistake scrotgrot made to give you bait wad geberalisation. I would agree however there IS a trend to assume men are entitled and use that against him
I speak for the issue of not being owed time or attention, as even I agree women don't owe men anything sexual or emotiinally intimate.
If you don't agree or disagree with the premise why the hell were you replying to the post? There's no debate?
You may as well have replied with a link to your baking blog for all the relevance it would have.
Not once have I brought up feminism. Why do you keep talking about feminism, and then have the nerve to accuse me of using straw men?
If you have no opinion on it either way, we can leave the 'discussion' here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by xloichan
If you don't agree or disagree with the premise why the hell were you replying to the post? There's no debate?
You may as well have replied with a link to your baking blog for all the relevance it would have.
Not once have I brought up feminism. Why do you keep talking about feminism, and then have the nerve to accuse me of using straw men?
If you have no opinion on it either way, we can leave the 'discussion' here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You may as well have replied with a link to your baking blog for all the relevance it would have.
Not once have I brought up feminism. Why do you keep talking about feminism, and then have the nerve to accuse me of using straw men?
If you have no opinion on it either way, we can leave the 'discussion' here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Neither agree nor disagree is an opinion, it means my judgment is more complex than either of you will allow.
The notion that men are entitled for seeking attention , especially sexual BUT NOT LIMITED to that, was a defence mechanism placed in by feminism. With good intentions to prevent harrasment and stalking, but it's now getting obscenely literal
In the context of what preceded Scrotgrot and the thread as a whole, your post was a straw man
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
Neither agree nor disagree is an opinion, it means my judgment is more complex than either of you will allow.
The notion that men are entitled for seeking attention , especially sexual BUT NOT LIMITED to that, was a defence mechanism placed in by feminism. With good intentions to prevent harrasment and stalking, but it's now getting obscenely literal
The notion that men are entitled for seeking attention , especially sexual BUT NOT LIMITED to that, was a defence mechanism placed in by feminism. With good intentions to prevent harrasment and stalking, but it's now getting obscenely literal
Lol, its not.
I'm not talking about men. I'm not talking about feminism. I'm responding to a quote from this one particular guy and his own personal problem. There is no wider context. He thinks there's nothing wrong with him and the problem lies with every woman in this country. I pointed out that this is statistically unlikely. You 'neither agree nor disagree'. There's nowhere we can go from here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by xloichan
Lol, its not.
I'm not talking about men. I'm not talking about feminism. I'm responding to a quote from this one particular guy and his own personal problem. There is no wider context. He thinks there's nothing wrong with him and the problem lies with every woman in this country. I pointed out that this is statistically unlikely. You 'neither agree nor disagree'. There's nowhere we can go from here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not talking about men. I'm not talking about feminism. I'm responding to a quote from this one particular guy and his own personal problem. There is no wider context. He thinks there's nothing wrong with him and the problem lies with every woman in this country. I pointed out that this is statistically unlikely. You 'neither agree nor disagree'. There's nowhere we can go from here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Nah re read it, scrotgrot is talking hypothetically about his research on gender studies, not his personal experience. He has a girlfriend or did when his post was made. He was observing and I think he was fairly objective in assessment. He even predicted your response: 'get over yourself'
you see we (critics of the gender war) have to pick our words very carefully or someone will misinterpret them
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
Nah re read it, scrotgrot is talking hypothetically about his research on gender studies, not his personal experience. He has a girlfriend or did when his post was made. He was observing and I think he was fairly objective in assessment. He even predicted your response: 'get over yourself'
you see we (critics of the gender war) have to pick our words very carefully or someone will misinterpret them
you see we (critics of the gender war) have to pick our words very carefully or someone will misinterpret them
You've read the wrong post. Nowhere in the post I quoted does it say that, in that post he's talking about the OP.
If you're going to criticise me for paraphrasing 'perfect' then you shouldn't insinuate I've told anyone to 'get over themselves'. That's in complete contradiction to your final sentence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by xloichan
You've read the wrong post. Nowhere in the post I quoted does it say that, in that post he's talking about the OP.
If you're going to criticise me for paraphrasing 'perfect' then you shouldn't insinuate I've told anyone to 'get over themselves'. That's in complete contradiction to your final sentence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If you're going to criticise me for paraphrasing 'perfect' then you shouldn't insinuate I've told anyone to 'get over themselves'. That's in complete contradiction to your final sentence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well done you battered me into submission as did my ****ing phone freezing on me mid reply.
You're right. OP is a loser and all those women who rejected him.and ignored him see this. OP should feel like **** and get depressed for being such a ****ing loser, it's his own fault. OP deserves to be ignored and ha e society continuously reinforce he's a loser.
Are you happy now? Because you obviously wouldn't be happy with any outcome but laugh at loser OP.
Let's laugh at pathetic OP now shall we.
HAHAahAHAhAhHaha
Original post by HigherMinion
Well, the Guardian is just anti-Western Culture; it would much rather we had 100% diversity under Sharia Law (100% diversity means 0% whitey, 10% men, for breeding purposes only)
The problem with feminism isn't just the modern waves of feminism, and I think this is the problem a lot of people make. "oh, I support REAL feminism, but not this crazy THIRD WAVE feminism!" - what has changed, really? It's a Marxist premise, that we are all equal and we are all human, and feminists ran with it to great effect. The refutation of feminism must come from a counter-premise that a majority can get behind. Stooping to their level and claiming men are oppressed by women is a continuation of playing up to Marx's power-binary crap. No, it must be argued that equality is an impossible myth without absolute totalitarianism and reorganisation on all levels of society. You say this to any sane man and it will all fall in to place.
Unfortunately, the propaganda of the Marxists spread much further and faster than proponents of liberty.
The problem with feminism isn't just the modern waves of feminism, and I think this is the problem a lot of people make. "oh, I support REAL feminism, but not this crazy THIRD WAVE feminism!" - what has changed, really? It's a Marxist premise, that we are all equal and we are all human, and feminists ran with it to great effect. The refutation of feminism must come from a counter-premise that a majority can get behind. Stooping to their level and claiming men are oppressed by women is a continuation of playing up to Marx's power-binary crap. No, it must be argued that equality is an impossible myth without absolute totalitarianism and reorganisation on all levels of society. You say this to any sane man and it will all fall in to place.
Unfortunately, the propaganda of the Marxists spread much further and faster than proponents of liberty.
I think the kids here are a bit too young for this stage of the red pill good fellow
Feminism is alright but the things regarding Anita Sarkeesian and the Otherkin is getting out of hand. All sorts of stupid things going on, having cake sales where men pay £1 but women pay 77p.
Original post by Snagprophet
Feminism is alright but the things regarding Anita Sarkeesian and the Otherkin is getting out of hand. All sorts of stupid things going on, having cake sales where men pay £1 but women pay 77p.
The issue is that these things are increasingly defining feminism. It's becoming harder and harder to tell internet 'feminazism' apart from the rest.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 1 minute ago
Degree Apprenticeship at Accenture (assessment centre)Last reply 3 minutes ago
Customer Services Group; Executive Officer (EO) - Home Office - Various RolesLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2866
Last reply 8 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 10 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Worried about son who wants to move out, will he be able to afford it?Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 17 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 20 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 23 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 24 minutes ago
choosing a medical school (Leicester, St Andrews, Nottingham)Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
