By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Are Feminists Evil?

Soundwave said:

 

The victim menality, you might as well bathe in horse piss before going outside, because it basically kills any chance you have with any kind of even semi-attractive woman. 

She has 5 dudes likely at any point just dying to hook up with her, and the odds are extremely high that 1, 2, 3 or even all 5 of them are less socially retarded than you are. 

I mean yeah, you can sit around and whine as a man about stuff ... but then what? Do you think you're actually going to get anywhere in life with that attitude?

That's just my general consensus from meeting people like "men's rights activists" ... these dude's coudn't get laid if their life depended on it. Ditto for "feminazis" ... a lot of them are not getting laid, lol. A lot of this shit I think stems from sexual frustration. But instead of trying improve themselves they fall into the trap of complaining and whining and no one else gives a shit. 

I think it's funny that you and I disagree on so many things but we seem to share a lot of the same values!

Totally agree! We probably just had different experiences in life, because in my experience it's the "feminist" men who are pushovers and are (often manipulative) nice-guys who try to get women into bed by saying they are a feminist and by trying to be nice (which works so well, because which woman wouldn't go for a pushover nice guy who tries to talk her into having a relationship with him and supplicating to her all the time? Yeah...) 

Just one example (not a guy though): A good friend of mine happened to be unhappy with her job and life situation (wrong job, wrong man). Instead of getting a new job and a new man she started complaining about the gender wage gap (of course she didn't get less money than the guys in her job). It was heartbreaking for me to see her try to get out of this mess but basically whenever she tried to start her self-help she'd find "advice" from feminists online which came down to "you are a victim and men are opressing you, so be angry at the patriarchy"! Luckily, she's doing a lot better now but the "advice" she found just made it harder for her because it really pushed the victim narrative.

And I could tell you about half a dozen other examples like this. But I can see how you can easily fall into the victim mentality trap by being an MRA as well: If you think women are evil and manipulative and you are held down by an evil society that expects men to do the first step in dating. That certainly isn't healthy.

Maybe the "political cleavage" (no joke, that's what the theory is called :p) of "Feminism vs. masculism" is the wrong way to look at things in general? Maybe the real cleavage is between people who want to empower themselves and others and people who have a victim mentality. And they are on both sides of the spectrum but just had different experiences in life. 



Around the Network
Louie said:
Soundwave said:

Unless you're a gay dude who loves cock, you're just going to have to accept that women today by and large don't accept being treated the way they were in the past.

That's just how it goes.

You can huff and puff about all this "feminist shit", but odds are if you view everything through that prisim, you're not getting 10 feet near any vagina you'd actually like to be. From my experience these guys who harp on this stuff are the ones always stuck at home, miserable, and their "girlfriend" is their hand and online porn. 

Just out of interest: Is anyone in this thread actually against equality? As in, I'm really curious if someone really thinks "women should go back to the kitchen" or something. Would be funny to argue with them. I think people are arguing whether or not women are opressed but I don't think anyone actually wants to opress women as in taking their rights away (but maybe I'm wrong?).

I don't know if anyone in this thread believes that, but there certainly are people on this site that do. I remember one person made a thread saying how women gaining freedom is destroying civilization. Unfortunately, I don't have a link to the thread.



Lawlight said:
On a side note, Australia's national women soccer team were fighting for equal pay. They just got beaten 7-0 by an under-15 boys team...

That's wrong on an entirely different level. Playing for your national team should be about honor, not money.



Louie said:

You totally mis-interpreted my post ;)

You accuse me of feeling opressed by women or blaming women for men's hardships. That's basically the single argument in your post.  Where did I say that? Please point me to the part of my post where I said women are responsible for any of the statistics I cited. I don't feel opressed by women in the slightest. I'm not a victim. I have my life in my own hands, I'm a grown up person and I am responsible for the choices I make in life. What annoys me is when people make up false statistics, make claims that can't be verified or use measures of "inequality" that are simply bogus, like the report you cited in an earlier post. These things have a bad effect on women's lives when all is said and done. Nobody profits from "rape statistics" on campus ("1 in 4 women on campus get raped") when most of the reported cases are drunk sex (where both parties are drunk). Believe me, I know this from personal experience. I was a witness in a case of sexual abuse and the police was extremely critical of the woman (and I knew for a fact that she was telling the truth). When I got angry at the two police-women they apologized and said that false rape accusations are so common for them that they have to be so critical. See? The real victims suffer because the small minority of women who simply have a bad character will abuse this stuff like crazy.

Here's what you say: "Women are opressed."

Here's what I say: "It's a complicated mix of privileges and hardships for both genders."

See the difference? I'm simply pointing out that women are not the opressed class you are making them out to be. At least not in the west. Never in the history of mankind has an opressed class lived longer, committed less suicides, died a lot less at work, had equal rights, worked less, could participate politically at will and had equal medical care. 

The domestic violence part is simply not true lol. In another post I linked a collection of over 200 studies that all show the same picture: Women are as violent as men in relationships. The single website you cited posts feminist tweets on twitter! That hardly beats hundreds of studies across dozens of countries that show the same picutre: Women are as violent as men. And I'm also not counting verbal abuse here. At least cite independent studies.

Life expectancy: I totally agree that lifestyle choices are a part of this. It's great that you say that! You know why? Because all your arguments later presented in your post are also caused by personal choices! Women are less interested in sports, less interested in politics (in Germany, 40% of all males but only 20% of all females are "highly interested" in politics), less interested in making a high paying career. As for life expectancy: Again, my argument is not that men are opressed lol. It's that women are not and that they get equal medical treatment! And the numbers prove my point in that they don't show opression of women. Once more, I'm not saying that men are opressed or don't get equal medical treatment. But to suggest that in the west women get treated worse medically is hilarious. And the sex part, oh my god! :P That has nothing to do with life expectancy at all! "Oh yes, you die earlier. But hey, you get more sex!" It's a bit random, huh?

Military: How you can spin having to register for draft (which is what things have been like in most countries for most of the time) into "men are opressing women" is beyond me. The military is not a place you want to go. In most cases, it's a place you have to go to. Also, in most western countries women are free to join the military these days but in case of war only men will have to fight. Equality! 

In general: You seem to confuse "men opressing women" with "powerful people opressing powerless ones". Aren't you a communist? Because you (not me) are the one missing the bigger picture: Those 0.1% of men (and women) who own the media, do politics, control the military, are extremely rich, etc. who are powerful are hardly representative of the male population. Do you think the average working man out there has "power" over lots of things? These things are by-products of capitalism, not opression against women. 99.9% of all men do not have these privileges. You are attacking the wrong enemy.

One last time: I'm not saying men are opressed. I think you've been reading a lot into my post if you came to that conclusion because feminists always argue that women are opressed. It's a complicated mix of privileges and hardships for both genders. What I'm saying is that to see the full picture we have to look at the male side, too. 

Heh. That's beautiful. I like you :D



VGPolyglot said:
theDX said:

Not sure if this is the "communism has never been tried" meme or something equally stupid...

It's communism has never happened, and the regimes that people call communists themselves didn't even say that they were communist. The parties were called communist because they claimed to be the vanguard party that would lead to communism, not that they were communist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlB_xNOAn1c&ytbChannel=Davie%20Addison

I assure you, this guy knows his shit about Communism, and he refutes pretty much everything you've ever said about the Soviet Union.



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:
VGPolyglot said:

It's communism has never happened, and the regimes that people call communists themselves didn't even say that they were communist. The parties were called communist because they claimed to be the vanguard party that would lead to communism, not that they were communist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlB_xNOAn1c&ytbChannel=Davie%20Addison

I assure you, this guy knows his shit about Communism, and he refutes pretty much everything you've ever said about the Soviet Union.

OK, I'll link you to actual Soviet Doctrine:

http://moscow.touristgems.com/history/15779-communism-in-20-years-1960-s/

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Communism%20in%2020%20years&item_type=topic

Why would Khrushchev talk about attaining communism in 20 years if they were already communist?



VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlB_xNOAn1c&ytbChannel=Davie%20Addison

I assure you, this guy knows his shit about Communism, and he refutes pretty much everything you've ever said about the Soviet Union.

OK, I'll link you to actual Soviet Doctrine:

http://moscow.touristgems.com/history/15779-communism-in-20-years-1960-s/

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Communism%20in%2020%20years&item_type=topic

Why would Khrushchev talk about attaining communism in 20 years if they were already communist?

Two things:

First: Have you heard about the concept of "propaganda". I mean if we have to start taking "doctrine" at face value from totalitarian dictatorships, your perspective about these people vs how they actually were in reality are going to be miles apart very quickly.

And two: Just because they didn't realize their supposed "end goal" doesn't mean they weren't Communist, and this wasn't a communist society. That's like saying that Hilter didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews.



Feminists aren't "evil", and feminism isn't inherently "bad". The problem, like with so many things these days, is that you have the loudest voices in a movement/group/fanbase, being the negative, aggressive, immature and often bigoted ones. I 100% am all for Equal Treatment for everyone. I just don't like the shitty, childish and often bigoted way that many feminists act.

It is worth pointing out that NOT all feminists are like that. Many are very nice, very reasonable people, some of whom even SEE the flaws and outright ridiculousness of some of their fellows. But, like with most things, the sane and rational ones are not the ones speaking loudly enough, nor steering the group narrative, so what you get instead, are basically the assholes representing the whole, even though they do not truly SPEAK for the whole.



potato_hamster said:
VGPolyglot said:

OK, I'll link you to actual Soviet Doctrine:

http://moscow.touristgems.com/history/15779-communism-in-20-years-1960-s/

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Communism%20in%2020%20years&item_type=topic

Why would Khrushchev talk about attaining communism in 20 years if they were already communist?

Two things:

First: Have you heard about the concept of "propaganda". I mean if we have to start taking "doctrine" at face value from totalitarian dictatorships, your perspective about these people vs how they actually were in reality are going to be miles apart very quickly.

And two: Just because they didn't realize their supposed "end goal" doesn't mean they weren't Communist, and this wasn't a communist society. That's like saying that Hilter didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews.

1. Yes, I've heard the concept of propaganda. The Soviet Union's propaganda was that they were actually trying to achieve communism, when they weren't.

2. They weren't communist, because they did not meet the fundamental principles needed in order to be communist. Hitler, on the other hand, was actively committing genocide and managed to kill off millions of Jews in a span of just years. The Soviet Union, in over 70 years, didn't do it.



VGPolyglot said:
potato_hamster said:

Two things:

First: Have you heard about the concept of "propaganda". I mean if we have to start taking "doctrine" at face value from totalitarian dictatorships, your perspective about these people vs how they actually were in reality are going to be miles apart very quickly.

And two: Just because they didn't realize their supposed "end goal" doesn't mean they weren't Communist, and this wasn't a communist society. That's like saying that Hilter didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews.

1. Yes, I've heard the concept of propaganda. The Soviet Union's propaganda was that they were actually trying to achieve communism, when they weren't.

2. They weren't communist, because they did not meet the fundamental principles needed in order to be communist. Hitler, on the other hand, was actively committing genocide and managed to kill off millions of Jews in a span of just years. The Soviet Union, in over 70 years, didn't do it.

So you think you know more than well-respected, highly-awarded historians who have made a lucrative living both researching, and expressing their opinions on the matter after studying it for decades and have access to materials you probably don't even know exist.

Makes sense.