~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 194 points195 points196 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
The whole systematic denial of misandry in feminism seems pretty Misandric by their definitions of sexism.
[–]cuteman 123 points124 points125 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, regardless of what your issue is, it doesn't matter since your gender is in "power."
Falsely accused of rape? Well that doesnt matter since your great-great-great-dad owned slaves and his wife didnt have the vote.
[–]radeky 50 points51 points52 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
But come talk to me in 300 years after women start abusing men.
Oh wait.. that would be now. Since spousal abuse cuts both ways.
[–]cuteman 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
According to whoever wrote that response that's what it would take for any type of complaint or issue to have merit.
Which is crazy talk because if you were victimized of course your situation is valid.
[–]iquizzle 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I love the historical argument. Most people who use it were born into privilege and given every chance to succeed... as though your great grandma's inability to vote makes you a victim.
[–]girlwriteswhat 43 points44 points45 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
But she probably owned slaves. As in, owned slaves in her own name, as many women did back then, often putting those slaves to work in businesses they owned, as in owned in their own names. Back before women were allowed to own anything, I mean.
PDF download warning: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sandsoftimeconsultancy.com%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2FWomenandtheirforgottenroleinSlaverysynopsiswebsite.doc&ei=xF_6T4-KKMffqAGT3JmOCQ&usg=AFQjCNGWo52Z9TNA38BoQLzAv4O59_Og9A
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I am on my phone and wish to give you my thanks for warning me that was a pdf file before I clicked on it.
[–]girlwriteswhat 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah, I don't know why it doesn't let you read it online. It's an auto-download. Click on it and "boop!" it's in your downloads.
It's a good read, though. Covers the role of women as slaves and as slave owners, and examines some of the protections female slaves had that male slaves didn't.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Holy shit I just realised who I replied to. Will definately read it when I get home in a couple of days.
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
this needs greater attention.
[–]MrStonedOne 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
the poster is girlwriteswhat. It will get greater attention, trust me.
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I DEMAND A SEPERATE SUBMISSION ENTIRELY!
too true though.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Your link downloaded a file as a .doc for me.
[–]DarylHannahMontana -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
What? You're completely misrepresenting the content of the document you linked. As far as I could see, the relevant paragraph is:
In 1815 European women owned 24% of those enslaved in St Lucia. In Barbados 40% of properties with 10 or less enslaved people were owned by women. In Bridgetown, Barbados women were the principal slave owners, using slaves in domestic occupations.
So, in St. Lucia and Barbados, women were slave owners, but if we're talking about an American man's (American) great-great-great-grandma, the paper says nothing about whether that woman probably owned slaves.
And the type of "ownership" you're talking about is probably the coverture type of ownership - a single woman can inherit land, but upon marrying it becomes her husband's. So you're misrepresenting that also.
I don't know what point you're trying to make by claiming women used to be big-time slave owners, but you don't seem to be doing it very accurately.
[–]jbuk1 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I presume they where just trying to get at the fact that some woman hold privilege just as some men do.
Affluent white women have more privilege than black slave men.
This simply shows that the matter of privilege is nowhere near as one dimensional as some would like to make out. It's not simply a matter of sex but in-fact a far more complex issue.
[–]lazydonovan 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wonder how feminism feels about my father's family. They were Norwegians that came to Canada in the very late 1800s (I'm 3rd generation Canadian on that side). They were serfs in Norway previously. Serfs were "property" of their Lord. They weren't slaves per se, but they weren't free either. We've never owned slaves (though I'm sure we did our fair share of sacking in England back in the 1500s).
We enjoyed no privilege. And we never claimed to be victims. We overcame and became middle class members.
[–]DarylHannahMontana 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ok, yes: there are different types of privilege, and some women have access to some of them. In this case, white privilege. I hope that isn't a revelation for anyone, and I hope that no one (including feminists) would try to deny that, or be forced to reluctantly admit that, etc.
But the above post misrepresents the extent of that privilege with regard to women slave owners a couple hundred years ago (or later), attempting (I think) to connect that with privilege today. My point isn't that the conclusion is wrong, but that the facts supporting that conclusion are distorted (not to say that other facts couldn't support the argument).
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I feel the need to point out that other groups do this to whites in America as well. They claim that because we have more people in positions of power we have some sort of privilege. Just felt the need to point that out. This concept extends to other "causes".
[–]ohgeronimo 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Yep. When fighting for yourself, the worst place to start (when looking for a community to back you up) is to be a white male American in the lower income bracket. You fit all their definitions of privileged, and no hardship can ever be attributed to anything but you getting your fair share of bad luck or consequences for screwing up.
I once read that the same bracket of people more often believe that hard work, faith, and dedication will result in them getting ahead in life. So you get people that will vote for a scumbag just because he's successful, and they believe successful people deserve it from hard work.
[–]digital_carver 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
in the lower income bracket
How does this fit into the "privileged" part?
[–]ohgeronimo 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You'd be surprised. Lower middle class is lower income bracket, but if you're not living in a trailer having trouble paying your water bill each month people think you're doing fine. Meanwhile you can be paying off a mortgage, working minimum wage, and having trouble affording anything but the necessities, but you're apparently still so god damned privileged that it doesn't matter what you go through.
And, from some behavior I've seen, you can be homeless and still somehow have more privilege than a woman, despite the overwhelmingly large number of male homeless compared to female.
[–]digital_carver 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course, that's what makes them privileged people: homeless males dominate by occupying that segment of the society in overwhelmingly large numbers!
/s
[–]MrStonedOne 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
HeHeHeHe.... sibqm_lmvm is female.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I figured I wouldn't say anything this time :) the message was still clear, though!
[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't talking to you but rather responding with mock rhetoric
[–]cuteman 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Er.... My response was largely rhetorical and sarcastic.
[–]ENTP 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yea, considering feminism is the leading "power group" on college campuses (where feminism, gender studies, and feminist sociology are all dogma, also academic and political feminists have successfully lobbied to remove presumptive innocence from college students accused of sexual misconduct, and women comprise 57% of college grads and attendees), and in legislation and law enforcement policies (VAWA, the Duluth Model, and Primary Aggressor Policies, all feminist sanctioned and lobbied, and all of which hurt innocent men, and prevent abused men from getting help).
The White House caters to women, and women are on the winning end of most metrics of happiness (things like: suicide rates, college attendance and graduation rates, homelessness rates, life spans, homicide rates, incarceration rates, sentencing for the same charges, lesser charges for the same crimes, the prevalence of genital mutilation, etc.).
Also, just because a tiny, tiny fraction of the population that is considered the "ruling class" happens to be comprised mostly of men, does not mean that most men benefit from it. In fact, most outliers of any statistical population are men, so it is no surprise that the outlier population of politicians and CEOs (and homeless people and suicide victims) is men.
More men than women are in politics, but more men than women also populate the streets, homeless and destitute, why does feminism make such a stink about one, but ignore the other?
[–]jbuk1 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here, here. Right on.
[–]a_weed_wizard 254 points255 points256 points 14 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link
What power does the average man even have anyway? None. These power structures with male leaders certainly don't act on behalf of or in the interests of men as a group, either. They never have. So this idea that men are "the group in power" is bogus. If men were the group in power and acted in men's interests then we would see a vast majority of female homeless, imprisoned, etc. The reality that is that the lowest of the low positions in society are filled by almost entirely by men.
This is pure sophistry to attempt to deflect the fact that feminists are hypocrites who don't practice what they preach.
It can be argued that women have exploited men since the dawn of time. See reproductive success rates and see the fact that even in this so-called equal society, women are still reliant on resources forcefully extracted from men.
[–]SarahC 68 points69 points70 points 14 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link
It's also not what the dictionary says - the argument can end right there.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points 14 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link
This! I hate it so much when somebody tells me that I don't understand a certain word and when I come back with a dictionary definition to resolve the issue, I'm being told that it doesn't count.
[–]2wsy 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link
This happened to me when arguing with two different kind of people: Atheists and feminists. Whatever that means.
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's odd. In my experience, atheists tend to be very very precise when defining words. You wouldn't believe how many people don't understand the difference between agnosticism, gnosticism, and atheism.
[–]2wsy -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh I would. Some atheists give you the same "it(atheism/patriarchy) doesn't mean what the dictionary says, it's much deeper than that because I want it to mean what I think it should mean" as some feminists.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
To be fair, I think many people behave that way no matter what you're arguing about. It happens to me most often when arguing with libertarians. I guess it depends on the issue which tips you off the most.
[–]hardwarequestions 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
I'm curious, what word do you normally approach libertarians with where they tell you your definition doesn't count?
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
All kinds of things. Among the top 5 are "libertarianism", "theft", "property", "rights" (positive and negative) and "government".
[–]catipillar 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
To be fair, most people likely assume that "libertarianism" means socially liberal, and nothing more. The term is grossly misrepresented by most major media outlets.
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
Ok, now I'm really curious. What's your definition of theft they normally object to?
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link
Libertarians often say that taxes are theft. I contend that, by definition, theft is an unlawful/illegal act where you take something that you aren't entitled to/that doesn't belong to you (the wording varies but this is the gist of it).
Thus, collecting taxes isn't theft because (1) it is not illegal/doesn't break any laws and (2) people don't own/aren't entitled to their gross income, only to their net income (at least according to the baseline distribution of most countries).
[–]2wsy 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sounds right.
[–]thechort 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
What dictionary definition do you find Atheists challenging?
[–]2wsy -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
[–]thechort 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I've never heard an atheist dispute that. All atheists lack a belief in god or gods. This is different from an active belief that there is not god. Got it? We fit the dictionary definition, you're trying to read things into it that aren't there.
[–]2wsy -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You assume way too much here. You are an idiot.
[–]thechort 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Personal attacks are uncalled for. If my assumption was incorrect, Can you please tell me how you have heard this definition disputed?
Sorry I assumed... the only people I've heard claiming that atheists didn't follow that definition were people who confused a lack of belief with an active disbelief, a common misconception atheists often have to correct. And I've dealt with many of them. If you've got some other issue, please, inform me.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Might want to throw in Civil Rights activists as well. Simply replace "female" with "racial minority" (typically "black") and you have the distorted definition of "racism."
[–]Quazz 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In that case, feminism means female supremacy. And they cannot deny it using a dictionary.
[–]Equa1 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Welcome to America..
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]altmehere 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
unironically states that scientific study is an inherently privileged activity and therefore carries inherent bias
Funny how all those men participated in biased studies that discount rape on men by defining it differently and then say men aren't raped.
Certainly these men were merely trying to preserve their privilege. /s
[–]anachronic 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The theory of gravity was also established by a male... I suppose all feminists should be able to fly, huh?
[–]Kirkayak 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Dictionaries were established by people who wanted to ensure that every person could find out what the hell everyone else was talking or writing about (apparently, this was at least a partially abortive effort).
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You should go check out the definition on sarcasm. :)
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When I look it up, all I find is a bunch of patriarchal lies.
[–]Kirkayak 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I recognized your sarcasm. My thought was to display a rationale behind the creation of dictionaries.
[–]FlawedHero 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Look at the second entry. Also, the first one here.
I'm not even sure what to say about that. Surely I'm not the only one who sees the irony in the entries.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not ironic, it's an actual reflection of common usage. It doesn't say "exclusive against women" it says "especially against women".
I'd venture to guess that if you were to take a snapshot of the instances in which the word "sexism" was used in writing, across all media, over the course of a year, the vast majority of such instances would be in reference to women.
By no means does that imply that women have an exclusive claim to oppressive sexism, just that the word is used more often that way.
[–]WhipIash 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[...] especially : discrimination against women
ಠ_ಠ
[–]radamanthine 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Many dictionaries still say that rape is male-only.
[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ohh yeah... good point well made.
[–]ArchZodiac 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think it's a lack of question why hating someone for something they can't help is wrong.
It is a bad thing to judge someone for an appearance that they can't help. It's being unfair to them and judging them from something other than their personal actions. Individuals are responsible for their individual actions, not their entire race or gender. But these feminists are so used to saying sexism is bad, that if they can change the definition of misandry or misogyny from just hating an entire group, to hating a group AND social oppression, then they can get their way with unfairly treating individual men unjustly, just for being men.
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, if the men in power acted in the best interest of men, all of western society would emulate the Middle East. Places where middle-aged men control commerce, education, social behaviors, families and marriages, and are immune to many western social taboos simply in the name of his honor or pride. That is a place where men act in their self-interest at the expense of women. That is a true male-dominated society where men have unyielding power and influence over women.
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
But it's a power structure which was established and is preserved by a very specific kind of individuals - not by a gender.
I as a man couldn't walk into the Middle East and do whatever I want. I would either have to obey all the rules and fulfill my prescribed role in society, or I would be subject to severe punishment as well. I am gay, for instance, and being a man wouldn't help me in that regard in the Middle East. It is true that women have to follow a strict dress code and cover their hair and parts of their faces. However, a man couldn't just dress in drag either. Women are (often even when underage) married to men and can't do anything about it. Yet, an ancient costum called "bacha bazi" also exists in the Middle East: rich men buy boys as young as 11 from impoverished families for sexual slavery (yes, this is tolerated despite the strict ban of homosexuality!). Watch the documentary Dancing Boys of Afghanistan to get more information about this. I could go on and provide more examples, but I think you get the gist of my argument.
My point is that viewing Middle Eastern societies as simply an oppression of females by males is an oversimplified view of the situation. Just because you're born with a penis in those countries doesn't mean that you will necessarily have a better life. It would make more sense and would be more fair to say that it's a totalitarian society with a specific culture and ideology and then describe the problems of that culture. ALL problems - not just the problems of one gender!
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Agreed. It is nearly impossible to find an example, either modern or historical, that is as simple as "one gender is persecuting the other".
[–]a_weed_wizard 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Polygamous societies like those in the middle-east do not act in the best interest of all men, either. It should be obvious why some men having four wives is very detrimental to the other 3 out of 4 men, for example.
[–]Jacksambuck 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
are immune to many western social taboos simply in the name of his honor or pride.
Honor and pride are responsible for more male deaths and suffering than any "western social taboos".
Plus, no alcohol. No dice.
[–]devotedpupa 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Any and all misogyny nowadays comes from both men and women that try to apply their bullshit morals to women in a way that is design to make themselves feel high and might, not to elevate the male sex. For example, abortion. It's not "men trying to control women's bodies" it's "Rich conservatives trying to control people"
[–]hardwarequestions 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
For example, abortion. It's not "men trying to control women's bodies" it's "Rich conservatives trying to control people"
i'm as pro-abortion as they come, but i really have to point out that's not accurate. it's moreso "christian conservatives trying to keep fetuses, that they believe are fully realized human beings, from being murdered." and also, some people are pro-life without even being religious.
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Correct. I think we don't do anybody a favor by misrepresenting the oppostion as a bunch of evil people who just want to "control women's bodies."
I think there are even some valid arguments in favor of pro-life and you don't have to be a fanatic of any stripe to acknowledge them.
[–]hardwarequestions 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Just wait till medical technology advances to the point where gestation can be done entirely outside the body in synthetic wombs. That's going to REALLY make the abortion discussion interesting.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Except when you factor in money. It's going to cost money to raise kids in artificial wombs. Who will pay for that? The government? That will start the most interesting discussion, in my opinion.
[–]agiganticpanda 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
If they end up costing less then giving women c-sections or natural births plus all of the check ups during the pregnancy I could totally see it happening.
[–]bikemaul 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It will cost a lot more to raise them synthetically. You basically have to have a specialist be near by 24/7 for nine months, plus billions in research and development.
[–]agiganticpanda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well the billions in R&D could easily come from the act of trying to learn how to develop a fetus of multiple other purposes and can be re-purposed into creating human children.
I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, but we can PRINT kidneys. It isn't THAT far away.
[–]a_weed_wizard 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I am sure initially the technology will be very expensive, but over time will be improved, refined, and made cheaper and more efficient as many pieces of technology are.
[–]ejp1082 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't think we do anyone a favor by letting the opposition claim their position comes from a place it clearly doesn't, as evidenced by their actual policy positions.
Claiming they think a fetus is a human being is just a convenient emotional kludge to make their cause seem less vile than it is. If one truly believed that a fetus is the same thing as a four year old, you'd be opposed to all abortions without exception. You wouldn't propose it's okay to kill a four year old because they're the product of rape. Yet the vast majority of pro-lifers carve out that exception.
What's notable about that exception is that rape is a situation where the pregnant woman didn't choose to have sex, and thus can be treated differently than the women who dare to have sex for pleasure and need to suffer the consequences of that, in their view.
Further, look at it in conjunction with some of their other positions: opposition to birth control, opposition to the HPV vaccine, opposition to comprehensive sex ed. These positions aren't consistent with believing a fetus is a human life or even with wanting to reduce the number of abortions. All these positions are however totally consistent with wanting people to suffer consequences for having sex. Which is their real belief - sex is only for baby-making and no one should have it for any other reason. Their policy agenda is to try to ensure that.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Claiming they think a fetus is a human being is just a convenient emotional kludge to make their cause seem less vile than it is.
So you think there isn't at least some percentage of people in the pro-life movement who actually believe that the fetus has a soul or something like that?
Besides, there are other arguments against abortion than just equating the fetus to a human being. One prominent argument, for instance, is that we deprive the potential human of his future. When you kill somebody without family or friends painlessly in his sleep, you aren't causing any suffering. It could only be said that you deprived that person of his future. One could argue that the same is true for the aborted fetus.
If one truly believed that a fetus is the same thing as a four year old, you'd be opposed to all abortions without exception. You wouldn't propose it's okay to kill a four year old because they're the product of rape. Yet the vast majority of pro-lifers carve out that exception.
That is true. Many of them are pretty inconsistent in that regard.
Further, look at it in conjunction with some of their other positions: opposition to birth control, opposition to the HPV vaccine...
Sorry but this makes it clear that you have a set of very specific people in mind. Saying that a pro-lifer necessary holds all these positions is just as unfair as saying that, for instance, an atheist agrees with all the garbage Penn Jillette spews around.
[–]ejp1082 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sure. Polls suggest that there's at least some people who are entirely consistent with the belief a fetus is a person; they oppose abortion in all circumstances including rape. They are an inconsequential minority of the overall population though, ~15%, and they're not even a majority of the people who describe themselves as "pro-life" (link - ctrl + f "rape" for the survey asking about the rape/incest exception). If 15% was the totality of everyone who was opposed to abortion, it'd be a non-issue on the national stage - they're just not that big a group. It's the hypocrites, the other ~30% who describes themselves a "pro-life" who ensure it remains a perennial issue, and represent the largest part of the movement to restrict and prohibit abortion. Hence, those are the ones to confront.
Sorry but this makes it clear that you have a set of very specific people in mind.
Sure. I'm going by the positions of the most prominent pro-life organizations and groups and their leaders. I don't imagine they represent every single person who calls themselves pro-life. But they're the relevant ones with the resources and desire to actually change policy. So again, they're the ones to confront. As I said above, you can find someone out there believes anything, so I'm sure someone is out there who's opposed to abortion in all circumstances yet also believes in comprehensive sex ed and easy access to birth control in order to reduce the need for abortions. But they're certainly not typical of the movement or representative of people who hold pro-life views.
The fact is that ~45% of people say they're "pro-life" but only ~15% actually act like they think a fetus is a human being. So at the very least it's totally inaccurate to say that pro-lifers as a group genuinely believe "the fetus is a fully realized human being" as per the great grandparent. And I'll admit I perhaps I went too far by asserting what their real motivations are (none of us can mind read, after all) - it's still true that their positions are consistent with being anti-sex-without-consequences.
One prominent argument, for instance, is that we deprive the potential human of his future.
Every minute you're not having unprotected sex with an ovulating woman but you physically could be you're depriving potential humans of their potential future. Every woman who's not pregnant or trying to get pregnant is doing the same. A woman who hits menopause and only had two kids has deprived of potential life the other 3-5 or more potential kids she biologically could have had in her life.
What's the distinction between a fetus that was aborted and a fetus that was never conceived if not something like "the fetus is a human being?". Both have the same "potential" for life; the only difference is that one was a bit further along in the process than the other.
Here's a better argument against abortion - it's an (almost) entirely avoidable medical procedure that no one wants to have to get and no one who does would describe as a "good" experience. For those reasons alone we should pursue policies to minimize their occurrence. Those who seek to restrict access and add to the misery of those who need them while simultaneously promoting policies that make them more likely to be needed in the first place, all under a justification they don't even truly believe are morally reprehensible IMHO.
[–]picopallasi 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
it's "people in power dictating morals to everyone else elected by people who want to dictate their morals to everyone else.
social conservatives, left-liberals, and nearly everyone in between want to dictate their morals on everyone. It just so happens social conservatives concentrate on abortion. Conservatives use it as a crutch to get more votes, left-liberals use fear of losing the right to it as a crutch to get more votes. See also: tired old wedge issues used in every election in order to avoid rational discussion.
[–]Quazz 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
These power structures with male leaders certainly don't act on behalf of or in the interests of men as a group, either.
Correct, they only act on behalf of their own interest.
[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Spoken like a true rapist that would be out right now oppressing women if it weren't for the brave participants of slut walks.
[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
All men are not in power. But typically men hold more than women. This is changing and you assholes are screaming bloody murder about it.
[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
In what way, exactly, does an average man have more power than an average woman?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Incoming pay gap and shallow body image arguments.
[–]Jacksambuck 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Video Games ! Western History ! Legos ! Rape !
Coming up, after the break.
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Citation needed newbie.
[–]Daqqer -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Replying to save your comment.
[–]Amunium 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you know that with RES you can save comments? Just a tip in case you didn't know, I'm not complaining.
[–]Demonspawn 120 points121 points122 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
Sexism = prejudice + power.
Women control 55% of the vote.
Therefore, men cannot be sexist.
[–]girlwriteswhat 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
But voters aren't powerful! The people who tell other people what to do aren't powerful--the people who do things are.
Which means that...well, the way gender dynamics tend to work, with women opting for proxy agency in all things risky and difficult and men obliging them, women will never have power. Because they have men do things for them. Which is not female power. It's male power.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I wouldn't call that power though. Doing something out of obligation is not exercising power. In fact it's the opposite I would say.
Come to think of it, I disagree completely with what your saying here:
The people who tell other people what to do aren't powerful--the people who do things are.
Are slaves powerful? They are the ones who actually do, whereas their owners simply give them orders.
I would say having things done for you is much closer to power than doing things for others.
[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
GWW is being sarcastic.
Those of us who are fairly well known sometimes do it without the /s tag.
[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I should have put an /s at the end of it.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
lol oh, I completely did not catch it.
[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think a more salient point would be that women, via that label alone, are a voting block. Namely, that politicians running for office will attempt to cater to the female vote. We have no analogue of this for men as far as I'm aware.
This would be in line with the idea I've seen passed around here that women tend to show an in-group bias.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Wow, is that true? Link?
[–]SchizophrenicMC 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
According to the most recent census data, women make up a greater portion of the population than men. Popular vote means women control the majority.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
But what percentage are registered to vote? IIRC it's only a ~1% difference or so in population.
[–]Demonspawn 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I forgot where I last saw the stat, but between there being more women than men, and more men than women disenfranchised due to felonies, women are 55% of the population which is eligible to vote.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's when you include all ages. Limiting it to voting age gives women a greater edge, since in reality more boys are born than girls but women live longer.
[–]SchizophrenicMC 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
It's not about voter registration, it's about population makeup. 51% of the population is the majority, and for the purposes of the US election process, at least, that's enough.
However, since women do not register to vote as often at men (take that suffragettes! Your fight was in vain, because women don't know how to be proper feminists anymore!) women don't take power.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
According to this, women are more likely to vote than men are.
[–]SchizophrenicMC 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
I'm sorry, I meant to add /s.
Anyway, that means women are in power in America. So there's power, and the screencap proves prejudice, so BAM! Tumblr Feminist meets her own definition of sexist.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
To be fair, voting in America is just choosing between the lesser of two evils. Being able to vote is hardly the same as being at the helm of the country.
[–]SchizophrenicMC 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
However, from a legal standpoint women can run for office, and statistically, more women vote for office, so why aren't we choosing between Hillary Clinton and Michelle Bachman right now? (Or more to the point, why aren't there qualified female candidates?)
The answer, of course, is because there isn't a hivemind. We're very diverse, regardless of gender. Women don't all hivemind together and elect female officers, just like men don't hivemind together and be sexists.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I agree, although I guess the feminist response would be that women are discriminated against in the political system and don't get the same opportunities in it that men do.
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The answer, of course, is because there isn't a hivemind. We're very diverse, regardless of gender.
Oh how I wish that was actually true. Unfortunately, it is not.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/
Abstract: In this paper we test the hypothesis that extensions of the voting franchise to include lower income people lead to growth in government, especially growth in redistribution expenditures. The empirical analysis takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by Switzerland''s extension of the franchise to women in 1971. Women''s suffrage represents an institutional change with potentially significant implications for the positioning of the decisive voter. For various reasons, the decisive voter is more likely to favor increases in governmental social welfare spending following the enfranchisement of women. Evidence indicates that this extension of voting rights increased Swiss social welfare spending by 28% and increased the overall size of the Swiss government.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
Excerpt: Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
http://womensissues.about.com/od/thepoliticalarena/a/GenderVoting.htm
Perfect! Thanks.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I think you'd have to have an incredibly naive understanding of how politics in America work to think that having a numerical majority of voters confers much in the way of power.
[–]hardwarequestions 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
for decades feminists have claimed that nothing more than the fact that most politicians were men meant men controlled the power. this is just a flipping of the argument to highlight how absurd they are.
more in depth debate can certainly be had.
[–]Wordshark 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh yeah? This election cycle, how much time is being spent discussing women's issues?
[–]Demonspawn 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I think you'd have to be a fucking moron to think that numbers don't outweigh all else. I don't give a shit how much money or how many campaign ads you run... if you don't pander to the majority female vote, you don't get elected.
Look at how much we are discussing women's issues like they are the most important things. Name any men's issue at all being discussed by the candidates.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think you'd have to be a fucking moron to think that numbers don't outweigh all else.
Numbers outweigh all else if they vote as something close to a unified bloc, but women don't for the most part. Polls I've seen seem to indicate that issues like birth control rank way below issues like healthcare and unemployment as far as what most voters are concerned with when deciding who they'll vote for.
Look at how much we are discussing women's issues like they are the most important things.
The Obama campaign is discussing women's issues because they've been in the news a lot lately, and they think (and I think they're right) that they can pick up some of the women that the Republicans have alienated by being terrible. If the polls are any indication, they're not going to get anywhere near as many votes from that as you seem to think they will.
Judging from their website, the Romney campaign isn't too hot to discuss women's issues at all.
Name any men's issue at all being discussed by the candidates.
Name any men's issue that's seen as important enough to the average man to swing his vote.
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
all that highlights is that men are taught not to associate themselves as a group anymore or care about issues pertinent to them as such.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
You must be new to democracy. Just look at how voting happens in Congress with even a slight majority.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Congress voting on bills works a little bit differently than voters voting in a general election.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It isn't the same, but the bill passes or fails based on the number of votes it gets, which is the point. The more people with the same interests/goals, the more voting power that group has.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The more people with the same interests/goals,
Part of the problem here is that women don't all have the same interests/goals.
the more voting power that group has.
The other part of the problem is that voting power isn't the only (or I would argue, the most significant) type of power that's at play where politics are concerned.
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Same goes for republicans and democrats and men. That doesn't mean there isn't a trend.
What like influence and lobbies? There are more associated with women's rights than men's rights in that case too.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
It does mean that some particular group containing 55% of voters doesn't necessarily constitute overwhelming power in general elections.
[–][deleted] 57 points58 points59 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I love the "Physically" as if this is a tangible thing.
[–]drinkthebleach 83 points84 points85 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I need to be laughed out of rape centers because kings ruled kingdoms thousands of years ago, makes total sense.
[–]Dolanduckaroo 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
While those peasant farmers ate privilege, while being given the great honor to serve their king in battle.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm willing to bet as soon as women do get to serve and get slaughtered. It would no longer be politically viable to engage in war for our country.
[–]Jacksambuck 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep, scary. Exactly the sort of thing where Demonspawn rings true.
[–][deleted] 50 points51 points52 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
That's not even the real definition of sexism though, I had someone say something similar about racism, it's just made up bullshit that they somehow believe.
[–]Saerain 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Careful of that mansplainin'.
[–]iongantas 32 points33 points34 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's sociology for you. Making up shit to let the "disadvantaged" get away with prejudice.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]deliriousmintii 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've heard of this before. I don't agree with it, which is probably why there are so many schools of thought in social sciences. lol
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't completely disagree with the 'position of power' thing, but its entirely contextual and not determined solely by the average statistics of the ruling government, or really even, at all. If you are a particular race or gender, and you work or live in a place that is dominated by some other race/gender, they can certainly make your life shit by discriminating against you, and that definitely counts as racism or sexism if they do on that basis. Power can be extremely situational as well. Someone passive aggressively walking slowly down the middle of the sidewalk and not letting you pass is an exercise of power, albeit minute.
There's a reason we have the term institutionalized sexism. It's to contrast with regular sexism.
[–]SnakeJG 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Does having the power to redefine terms mean that they can be sexist now?
[–]arch4non 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I remember hearing something like that from a thread about teachers. Apparently a few black students thought it was perfectly okay to harass and disrespect their white teacher. They thought it was their right to act that way while in their mind it wasn't racism because it's not possible to be racist against white people.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is the typical cultural marxist definition.
Same with "racism has nothing to do with race".
At least that latter idea has somewhat of a leg to stand on...
[–]unplural 47 points48 points49 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
this is the exact same argument used to say people of color can't be racist
[–]typhonblue 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Not quite.
Racism is a result of tribalism, which can be very onesided indeed. Sexism is something that is almost always bidirectional as the genders are so interdependent that if you do something nasty to one, you invariably end up doing it to the other as well.
It's just when it goes through the 'gender lens' the nastiness usually mutates into a new form.
[–]Darkling5499 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
i think his point is that like she's saying women can't be sexist, a lot of minorities say minorities can't be racist because they are a minority.
[–]picopallasi 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm a white man in southeast Asia, does this mean I'm allowed to be racist? If so.. hooray!
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Blast! Foiled again!
[–]unplural 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
what i'm saying is this is literally the argument that the vast majority of these "social justice" bloggers use for why the things they say aren't racist. usually comes with an obligatory "google 'power + racism'"
also i'm not a he :p
True, but I feel the need to point out that other groups do this to white men in America as well. They claim that because we have more people in positions of power we have some sort of privilege. Just felt the need to point that out. This concept extends to other "causes".
[–]Shorties 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Not really, if a woman was making a sexist joke about another woman then it would be the same as a person of color saying they can't be racist. But I don't think I have ever heard of a Hispanic person thinking they could get away with saying something racist about a black person and claim it isnt racist because they are a minority too.
[–]unplural 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
you haven't spent enough time on tumblr then
[–]dakru 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
This is the all-or-nothing thinking that is behind the female victim fetish and vilification of men that's so important to feminism.
No, no, men are not half the population that happens to have a penis. Not at all. Men have power. Collectively, despite not being a collective or a hive-mind.
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
You must have missed this year's international men's conference when we discussed all that. This year, we decided that we, as a collective, will stop leaving the seat up, but in exchange we're going to ramp up sexual harassment against our coworkers.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You know it, but a last minute amendment was added requiring 15% more cuddling per week.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
But on the other hand, when asked to take out the trash, we're now going to watch 15% more of the game before actually doing it.
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
now you know that's still a contentious issue. the guys-who-don't-watch-sports caucus fought hard for it to be 15% more of the game OR 15% more internet browsing but that addendum was struck down in favor of JUST the extra game watching. we're still a bit mad about it.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah, I know that one was a hotbutton vote. The swing votes from the not-really-watching-the-game-just-dont-wanna-get-up guys were crucial.
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
and THEY never would have voted that way if it hadn't been for the lobbying done on behalf of the just-let-me-drink-my-beer crowd. those two groups almost never align their votes.
[–]he_cried_out_WTF 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
will stop leaving the seat up, but in exchange we're going to ramp up sexual harassment against our coworkers.
Then laughed maniacally as we wrung our hands at our dastardly deeds to be done.
This years conference held a vote to abolish the patriarchy. We elected not to.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A feminist implying women don't have power over men in any regard? Oh you!
Talk to me after you divorce someone or try to take custody of a child. Talk to me when one of your sisters cries rape against a man - even if she's lying. Talk to me when you have a son, and get to check a little box determining how his genitals are going to look and function for the rest of his life.
Women like this have their heads so far up their asses, it's no wonder nobody takes them seriously.
[–]BattleBrother 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Tumblr is a place for batshit insane LBGT-feminists.
Just stay away.
[–]ignatiusloyola 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That does adequately sum up their argument. The point that should be made is to reject that definition of "sexism" (it also applies to racism).
These words lose their meaning and effectiveness if they are only used as a way to transfer power from one group to another, rather than to identify and label poor behaviour. If it is simply a power grab definition, then it doesn't have significant meaning to be worthy of attention.
[–]thrway_1000 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We should turn it around and show that women make up 60% of the mangers in the workforce, they control 70/80% of the spending power, have the vast number of gender specific lobbying groups, make up the majority of the population (both voting wise and living in the US), and so on. Then at that point only women can be sexist and their argument will be shown as invalid.
[–]ABORTED_BABY_BUFFET 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Sigh, oh tumblr. Why anyone takes anything on tumblr seriously just baffles me. The OP in the pic is more than likely in her early teens.
[–]TrashAudio 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Nice use of ageism there, guy.
[–]TurdFerguson 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Really, someone named powerlesbian with tits as "her" profile picture (obviously not supporting the patriarchal views there) is likely in her early teans?
[–]ABORTED_BABY_BUFFET 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I've spent enough time on tumblr to have seen several very young girls who have posted content like this and even gone as far as making up their own terms and even their own sexualities! But yeah, yeah, I realize I am kind of generalizing in my original statement.
[–]TurdFerguson 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My post was sarcasm. I'm in agreement.
This woman claims women have NO power, not even on the individual level.
Laughable. Next.
[–]hardwarequestions 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Extreme feminists always seem to be the ones who think the lowest of women and their capabilities. It amazes me.
[–]Kirkayak 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I think that many are damn well aware most women are not quite so feeble. If feminists kept their complaints restricted to what is completely real, it would assist their cause immeasurably.
Congrats on your birthday.
Thank you! Hard to believe its been a year already.
[–]Silvercumulus 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm a woman.
So, yeah. I'm just as sickened by this notion as I am by anyone who says that black people are entitled to (insert something here) because "they" were "enslaved" by "me (as a white person)."
Black people can be racist, and women can be sexist.
People use this logic with race as well as gender, and it is widely accepted. People say whatever they want about Caucasian males, and the public almost always ignores it. I'm not suggesting that speech should be policed, but I do find the hate in these people’s hearts disappointing.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]borderlinebadger 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Rwanda and Sudan the beacons of tolerance in the world.
[–]borderlinebadger 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
To be fair to him also the white farmers in Africa being murdered is a complicated problem that is beyond simple racism.
Agree completely with the second paragraph.
[–]Young_Zaphod 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
I distinctly recall seeing a message calling out a tumblr user for her male bashing hyper-feminist posts. The person responded (similar to this), and the comments were along the lines of "OMG I bet this is another one of those misogynistic pigs from Mens Rights on Reddit". Ugh.
[–]ch4os1337 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
"OMG I bet this is another one of those misogynistic pigs from Mens Rights on Reddit".
Wait what? Really? People say that?
[–]Young_Zaphod 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes, it's a thing. It happened a long time ago, and I don't feel like digging through 100's of feminist posts to find it again, but it's there.
[–]THEAdrian 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It happens all the time
FTFY
[–]Shorties 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
I've seen quite a bit of stuff, especially in the few times I've visited SRS that characterizes this men's rights subreddit as extremist, anti feminist, and misogynistic. From what I have seen here it's mostly bullshit. I believe and hope the majority of the people here support equality feminism, just not this misandry extremist feminism bullshit. (And I mostly believe that the majority of feminists are equality feminists as well, it's just these kind as seen in this tumblr post are a lot louder then the reasonable ones).
[–]hardwarequestions 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Rest assured most here love equality feminism. We mostly consider that the ideal.
There's contention though as to whether or not most feminists are equality feminists or some other type. The debate is made more difficult when questions of which type has the most influence are introduced.
[–]ZorbaTHut 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Here's one of my favorite examples of how well-regarded equality feminism is:
Welcome to the feminism community! This is a space for discussing and promoting awareness of issues related to equality for women. Please help us keep our discussion on-topic and relevant to women's issues. Discussions of sexism against men, racism, classism, ableism, and other -isms are only on-topic here if the discussion is related to how they intersect with women's issues.
Welcome to the feminism community! This is a space for discussing and promoting awareness of issues related to equality for women.
Please help us keep our discussion on-topic and relevant to women's issues. Discussions of sexism against men, racism, classism, ableism, and other -isms are only on-topic here if the discussion is related to how they intersect with women's issues.
This is from the sidebar of /r/feminism. Woo! Go equality, as long as equality is defined solely in terms of women's issues!
[–]hardwarequestions 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
To be fair that is a feminist space. Wouldn't that make sense?
[–]ZorbaTHut 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Only if they admit that feminism isn't about equality for everyone. I've talked to them, and they're quite insistent that feminism = equality = feminism.
I find it quite comical that /r/feminism doesn't actually permit feminist discussion.
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Not that I disagree with your point about feminism...it really does seem to be more focused on greater privileges for women then bringing about some sort of equally between genders...but I don't think we can base assumptions of the movement on how /feminism specifically acts.
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The behavior of a single subreddit certainly can't be used as a sign of the entire movement, no, but it's a common issue. I've honestly never seen a feminism discussion community that is happy to discuss men's rights issues.
Now that is an observation I, unfortunately, must agree with.
[–]catipillar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But isn't /r/mensrights a place for men's issues? I mean, if you feel that men and women should be equal, then you go to /r/feminism to discuss the issues that women have that deny them equality, and you go to /r/mensrights to discuss the issues that men have to deny them equality. If women feel that they aren't equal, yet seek equality, it would be important to speak to other like minded women on the issues at hand, and if men feel that men aren't equal, yet seek equality, it would be important to speak to other like minded men on the issues at hand. That is why women's issues aren't posted in /r/mensrights...the same reason that men's issues aren't posted in /r/feminism.
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If feminism is about equality, then men's rights is a subset of feminism.
The problem I have is that feminists claim feminism is about equality. And yet, feminism has this curious tendency to focus only on the women's issues side of things. I don't mind that they focus on the women's issues side of things, that's their right. I do mind that they do so while hiding behind the smokescreen of "feminism is about equality and if you don't agree with feminism you must be a sexist".
Men's Rights isn't about equality, and doesn't pretend to be. It's about men's rights. This is one of the things feminists criticize it for.
I feel like feminism is trying to have their cake and eat it too - an altruistic mission statement that puts them on a moral pedestal, coupled with behavior that largely ignores the mission statement.
[–]iongantas 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The respondent has a crap argument regardless of what variety of prejudice you're applying it to. It's a political word game.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It's a myth that women were historically far more oppressed than men. Women and men had different roles in society and whoever got out of line was punished, regardless of gender. A man who was supposed to go to war couldn't just use his "power" and refuse. The real power was always in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population and thus not representative for any gender.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If only we could shrink this down to a nifty little quip. It takes so long to explain to people.=_=!
[–]ohgeronimo 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Everyone gets screwed in this world, except the 1%?
[–]loose-dendrite 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Something I noticed that's related. Boys can't act like girls or they'll be looked down upon. This is interpreted by feminists as being girl-like = being inferior. But...
Somehow I suspect if men had laxer gender roles, it would still be sexism against women...
[–]ImpyLlama 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
So the higher realms of society were sex-less? Obviously there were multiple restricting factors (class, race, etc), however, more often than not men had a greater likelihood of breaking the barriers; not to say they had a easy ride.
I wouldn't boldly assert that it is a myth.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
more often than not men had a greater likelihood of breaking the barriers
What is this conjecture based on?
[–]ImpyLlama 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In no way am i saying that men were not repressed, however, your claim that women were not seen as unequal subjects is fallacious. You cannot claim just because men went to war and women did not that inequality was a myth. Even if women did want to go to war, they could not, how is that not repression? Additionally, as much as it is about the physical side of history, you have to weigh in the social side; how women were perceived.
Freedom is about options, it's irrelevant whether or not you find your cell comfortable if you want to break out of it.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In no way am i saying that men were not repressed, however, your claim that women were not seen as unequal subjects is fallacious. You cannot claim just because men went to war and women did not that inequality was a myth. Even if women did want to go to war, they could not, how is that not repression?
But everything you just said about women can be said about men as well. Even if a man would have wanted to stay home and care for the kids while his wife goes to war or work, society wouldn't have let that happen. I never claimed that men and women were seen as equals. I specifically said that they both had different roles in the various societies that existed throughout history and that both genders were subject to the benefits and drawbacks that were attached to said roles. I was calling the idea that women were methodically oppressed by men a myth.
Additionally, as much as it is about the physical side of history, you have to weigh in the social side; how women were perceived.
So what? In many societies women were treated like priced posessions while men, unless they proved themselves to be excellent providers, where seen as expendable trash.
[–]MrStonedOne 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As an mra, I always love it when I see links from here in /r/all. Given, this was link number 342, and I really need to find something else to do if im this far down in /r/all, but still; it was kinda nice to see.
[–]Jisano 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I've learned in my Sociology class that this is the real definition of sexism/racism/etc. Using power to oppress others based on your prejudice. Tbh, i find this definition to be ridiculous. I understand it, and I understand this Tumblrer's point of view, but it doesn't seem to actually help anything. We're all victims of society.
You should report your sociology teacher because they aren't teaching what most sociologists believe in.
[–]Jisano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
it was actually in the book :C but that teacher was indeed a terrible teacher for other reasons.
Teacher picked the book?
[–]penikripa 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
*Feminism.
[–]funwish 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
True.
And in this case, Bigotry.
They (these particular feminists) can try and justify it, but it's still bigotry.
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
This rhetoric of "privilege and power" and "historical and societal" reasons needs to stop. I'm white, I'm male, I'm straight. However, I'm an individual. I'm white, but I'm the son of immigrants who came here with practically nothing and had to learn a new language and culture. I'm a male, but I was taught to treat women with respect as equals, and never would I discriminate or generalize women.
I do not deserve mistreatment for being classified under an umbrella term like male or white. Because I and many others are not responsible for past wrongdoings.
This woman has been brainwashed and I feel sorry for her.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]gnorwerauoy 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I feel sorry for ignorant brainwashed bigots. Hopefully feminists wil drop the hate and get on board with true equality instead of creating false statistics to solidify a permanent victimhood for profit at weak and poor men's expense.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
You're brainwashed too. I'm a person and she's a person. You are putting me in a group of people and telling me that everyone in this group of people is privileged.
People are individuals and not groups. That's what led to racial and sexual discrimination in the first place. Don't you people get it?
Please give me an example of the privilege I have. You don't know me and you don't know my story. You can generalize all you want but you know nothing about me.
What is the point of calling out "PRIVILEGED" any time a male disagrees with you if, by your own admission, the entire concept is effectively meaningless?
The word is just a rhetorical tool to shutdown disagreement without engaging in actual discussion- it is the very definition of ad hominem.
[–]picopallasi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
TIL: Even if you live under a Stalinist dictatorship, so long as you're a hetero white male, you're privileged.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
No need to get all upset and swear at me. You're wrong. I can tell you are wrong because you are getting angry and giving no evidence to back up your "fucking" claims.
Except you seem to be pointing to a red object and, because you're color blind, think it's gray.
Go ahead, try us. Explain why the world is how you claim it to be.
Haha, you're dumb. It makes me laugh.
[–]picopallasi 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
you still have white male privilege
Privilege has less to do with gender or race and much more to do with economic policies in places of origin. This fact is commonly left out of discussion due to a concentration on personal anecdote.
If I was born male, white, and heterosexual in the USSR 60 years ago, what is the likelihood I'd be all that privileged? Odds are I would be born poor, live poor, and die poor, like a vast majority of Soviets did. What of East Germany and West Germany? I would have rather been born a West German woman then an East German man.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Mind-blowing? How is it not relevant? It's not just about lacking money, it's about lack of opportunity, lack of freedom. The point is entirely relevant because it refutes the idea that being white or male is mutually inclusive to being privileged. And you didn't rebut this, reducing it per country doesn't make it irrelevant. It's just establishing a larger frame of reference. Fact is, it's better to be a a non-white woman in a country like the US than to be a white man in a place like Belarus. Is being a white man in Belarus better than being a non-white woman in Belarus, possibly, but that's just re-framing the argument to the country - it doesn't rebut it.
[–]picopallasi 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Before you made a blanket assertion, you needed to define two very important factors for your readers for purposes of clarity: Context, and what constitutes privilege. What you said, on face value - regarding all men despite context and whatever preconceived notion of privilege is: non-defined - is by nature an incomplete, incoherent argument. It's just a specious cliche.
After I refuted the idea that all white men are mutually inclusive with being privileged (which still stands, given my context), based on my own arbitrary criteria, it was only then that you chose the criteria in which to frame your original hypothesis. What could I do but define my own metrics, absent yours, in which to formulate my contrary opinion?
Before you rebuke the rest of us, perhaps it would serve you well to at least try introspection first, and contemplate whether or not you were clear. You weren't, just as you said "you literally all talk out of your assholes". Literally? Point made.
[–]HeyImAlex -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
We're talking about power structures, not situations; the fact that some lower class straight white men are worse off than some upper class lesbian black women isn't really relevant to the discussion, and it's especially irrelevant when you compare it to other countries that don't share the same power structure. Think of it like this; controlling for economic status and upbrining, if you took one thousand straight white men, one thousand straight white women, one thousand straight black men, and one thousand gay white men, which group do you think would end up in the highest paid positions with the best jobs? Why do you think that is?
[–]picopallasi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
We're talking about power structures, not situations.
The context wasn't defined. What is the difference between "power structures" and "situations"? A power structure is a situation. What exactly is a "power structure"? Political power? If that's the case, how does this explain the amount of women in power in countries throughout the world? How do you even average this out? By what metrics? This generalization doesn't even hold up to scrutiny if you count how many female political leaders there are in the world, indeed among the most powerful in Europe is a woman. The American president isn't white. You want to include Asia in your statistics then? Turns out the most powerful man in China is Chinese. How about a metric for the individual power has over percentage of the world's population? Look at that, Hu Jintao then becomes the most powerful man in the world by plurality. See how you can skew statistics to mean whatever you want them to mean? Politicians and political groups do this constantly, especially when they start using percentages. It's intentionally deceptive.
the fact that some lower class straight white men are worse off than some upper class lesbian black women isn't really relevant to the discussion
Except it is relevant, these things don't exist in a vacuum. The point still stands, there are any number of white men that have had no particular privilege. What you're both doing is lumping a non-descript group of ideal people together, calling it white men and saying, "because this averages out better for them, on average, all of them have privilege".
But this kind of blob statistic is just confirmation bias. One white man being privileged does not make me privileged. If another white man lacks privilege, it doesn't make all men (white or not) lack privilege. Whatever privilege might mean. Therefore, there is no mutual exclusivity, there are far more other factors than ethnicity and gender when it comes to who is better off. This is just a gross oversimplification. The reason I bring up other contexts is for this point entirely, and you can't just dismiss this. Even then, something we're not even talking about here, is the assumption of causes. If such and such white man is privileged, whatever that word means, is it because of gender/race preference? Or maybe there are policies for non-white men/women that have unintended negative consequences. Not all net negatives are mutually inclusive with gender or race bias.
Think of it like this; controlling for economic status and upbrining, if you took one thousand straight white men, one thousand straight white women, one thousand straight black men, and one thousand gay white men, which group do you think would end up in the highest paid positions with the best jobs?
This is impossible, you can't duplicate a lab experiment to humanity. Scientism applied to human behavior will always yield bad results. Bottom line, statistics can be skewed to mean anything you want them to.
[–]HeyImAlex -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
You're conflating "better off" with "has more priveledge" and they're not the same. To point to the outliers and say "look! no bias exists!" is absolutely asanine, and while "you can't duplicate a lab experiment to humanity" you're being intellectually dishonest by not saying what you and I clearly know; on equal footing, straight white men come out on top. This is priveledge. The white men who you say "have no particular priveledge" are all a part of this system from birth by virtue of being white. They will get more jobs than their black peers. They will serve less harsh sentences than their black peers.
What you, and perhaps others that are so feverntly fighting against this, don't understand is that having priveledge isn't bad. It doesn't make you a terrible person. Your opinions aren't invalid and your issues aren't irrelevant. The point isn't to play the opression olympics, it's to realize that others face opression at all. To deny that you have priveledge is to deny that any inequality exists between the races and sexes. To recognize that it exists is the first step in fixing those inequalities.
[–]picopallasi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And you can qualify what you mean and generalize all you like. This is why any scholarly works are very specific to times and places. "A study of gender bias in the mining industry in post-apartheid Africa". Or "A study in racism in Victorian England". What's true in post-apartheid Africa or Victorian England may not be true in other situations.
It's ultimately meaningless because of context. You're taking blobs of idealized people, in no specific place in time, in no specific place in the world, averaging out their ideal "outcome" and drawing a conclusion. As I've already expounded upon, this will always lead to shoddy, non-scientific results. Once again, this is why scholarly papers are specific.
Was I born privileged? By virtue of being born in late 19th century North America, yes. Every single one of us from there and from this place in time, those of us who are of able body and sound mind, are privileged. If I make 34k a year, I'm in the top 1% of income earners in the world. Is this not privilege? It's always about context.
[–]HeyImAlex -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm talking about the modern United States. Does that give you the context you need?
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
hey Alex, guess which group also ends up dying the most on the job, living on the street, and getting killed in combat. Guess you dumb fuck.
[–]HeyImAlex -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Guess you dumbfuck.
How mature. It's an anomaly how r/MR has a reputation of being filled to the brim with ignorant fourteen year olds.
That being said, let me guess. Black men. Then hispanic men. Then white men. What were you arguing again? That priveledge doesn't exist?
Didnt you JUST say swears are fine? Don't be a hypocrite.
Regardless of the racial makeup, its still all men. Men at the top, and the bottom. You get to work on correcting the glass cellar and ill start to care about the glass ceiling.
[–]picopallasi 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's a good one, same goes for a homogeneous population here in Asia. It's men forced to be in the military, men sleeping in the street; men in the office towers, men in parliament.
Bla bla bla. Welcome to fucking life.
[–]Amunium 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Could someone explain to me what this power is, that these feminists perceive themselves as lacking?
Usually I hear things like the wage gap, and while I know it isn't even real, it doesn't apply as a general thing either, because even according to their biased statistics, not all men make more money than women in the same position. If this was the argument, they'd have to say that women can't be sexist to men who make more money, but they don't - they say all men.
So what is it? I'm not asking what power we actually have, but what power it is they think we have. I can't even see that.
[–]therealxris 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Christ.. the user account is "powerlesbian"
You're all being trolled, hard.
[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not like feminists don't believe this shit anyway.
[–]Mellowde 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I thought this was a post in r/funny at first. I mean, seriously haha. WOW.
[–]LoveMachine69000 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
this literally hurts to read. jimmies are rustled.
[–]Danny-Dreams 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The more I read about Feminism the more it reminds me of religious fanaticism.
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I took a look at her Tumblr and saw a lot of ridiculous posts, here are some of my favorites:
ANONYMOUS ASKED: i think you are amazing even tho you're white heheh. i do what i can since the majority of my people are really embarrassing and awful
ANONYMOUS ASKED: i think you are amazing even tho you're white heheh.
i do what i can since the majority of my people are really embarrassing and awful
We all should thank this girl for her efforts. Thinly veiled racism on the asker's part as well.
all right, look, i’m done. cis men are privileged. get over it, cis men. white people are privileged. get over it, white people. straight people are privileged. get over it, straight people. stop trying to come to me with all these “but x, y, z,” because you just look stupid. being privileged doesn’t mean your life is perfect and flaw free and that nothing bad happens to you. it means that, at the end of the day, by societal and historic standards, you are better off than those you hold privilege over. it is OK and GOOD and IMPORTANT that you are AWARE of your privilege. the fact that you’re all up in arms over your privilege isn’t helping anyone. accept, check, and know your privilege, then and only then will you be able to even begin to even, just a little bit, just barely, understand what it means not to be privileged. now i’m going to go back to working on chianne’s 18th birthday present and all you self-loathing, whiny people are gonna leave me alone.
ANONYMOUS ASKED: "all cis men are privileged.." How exactly? simply by being male and cisgender.
ANONYMOUS ASKED: "all cis men are privileged.." How exactly?
simply by being male and cisgender.
Generalizations much?
And lastly, my favorite part is when she...
BOSSGRON ASKED: top 5 celebrities boobs, go go go nina beyonce lea (i saw those boobs naked live and in person omg never forget) kat (graham) naya
BOSSGRON ASKED: top 5 celebrities boobs, go go go
...objectifies women!!
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What the fuck does she mean, "my people" ?!
[–]Jacksambuck 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Who is she ? Moses ?
[–]TexasWithADollarsign 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
Trayvon_R_R_Martin's awful comment -- which has been downvoted by members of this very subreddit -- was just picked up by powerlesbian as representative of "your neighborhood reddit MRA group." When she has to go and dredge the comments that aren't even shown by default, it goes to show how credible she really is.
Edit: She deleted her post. Wish I'd've kept a souvenir screenshot.
Edit²: Let me guess... the SRS trolls are upon us.
ha she did?! Too funny.
[–]TexasWithADollarsign 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yeah. Since then, all she's done is make fun of the mission statement and go to bed. Oh, and post ani-GIFs about the Vampire Diaries or something.
Bummer. I was hoping to give her an epiphany.
The dumb is strong with this one.
As though power is polarized.
[–]Libertarian_Atheist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Fighting for shared interests can be a very positive thing. Though, there is always the danger of the utilization of "group thought and group victimization" in the effort toward shared interests. It seems to affect the least forthright of any group, those who wish not for equality or restitution but for an upper-hand themselves. Even if they understood their actions and words could lead to more abuse of either men or women, it would not matter to them, they are out for their own empowerment and benefit.
Those feminists who wish to strip men of all rights are of the exact vile mindset of those men who committed truculence against women in the past. The irony would be very sharp if it weren't for the fact that they are the exact same type of people as those abusive men and the ONLY thing they share in common with the average woman are the general features of their body.
They do not care about other women or their plight, they only pretend to for their own interests. If they genuinely cared they would be doing all they could to bring the sexes in closer alignment in terms of equality. They would be doing this globally, not just in rich Western countries. They would be working toward educating men one-on-one from a young age on up and trying to reach them personally to educate them on why what their father may have done to their mother was wrong. Many do, but not these women who try to spread hate and discontent by philosophizing simpleton-like and feeble minded vitriolic revisionism and redefinition.
Gender equality cannot come through divisive language of this kind, it can only come through closer ties and a better understanding of one another. Any men who are reading this, I implore you to not color your world and your understanding of women by these hate-mongers. That is what they want.
[–]LoneRanger21 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So lemme get this straight.
I can be treated badly by someone who is different (female), because something my people (men) from the past have done? And that somehow the responsibility for other people's bad actions is somehow shifted onto my shoulders?
What the hell? Are they trying to turn Original Sin into a feminist argument?
[–]The_Broken_Nigel 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Precisely. Manwomanmyth refers to female bigotry as "the last original sin"
[–]MyWorkUsername2012 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is basically an argument about how to define a word. First, I would say most people would agree on a definition that goes both ways regardless of gender. Second, who cares how she defines this word, if your being shitty your being shitty, I don't care if you think it's sexist or not. You don't think it's sexist, well fine, you're still shit.
[–]mab67 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is a very important point that no one has made yet.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
"For every Queen Elizabeth there are a thousand male land owning oligarchs, so using your metrics, women are a thousand times more oppressed."
You have some evidence? Around me is mostly a bunch of couples that both work.
[–]insanemetal187 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
it's becoming clear to me that people don't want equality, they just want their turn.
[–]alecbenzer 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Ask her for a source for this definition? From wikipedia:
Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex
It comes from the cultural marxist dictionary.
We aren't allowed to read it because it is only kept in libraries where you have to check your privilege in at the door.
[–]connekt2net 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if you were sexist to males, we wouldn't give a shit. Maybe you women should stop having emotions.
[–]CRASNY 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
hello i'm robert pattinson but you can call me kelsey. i'm married with a real biological child that just so happens to be a cat.
Yeah, I'll just go ahead and not take this entire person or their views on life and sexism seriously at all.
[–]FreddyDeus 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When she is hundreds of years old, then she can claim to be the victim of hundreds of years of sexism.
My favourite bit is that her pic in the corner is just her in a bra. Classy.
[–]TheOnlyKarsh 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I just love how we hear this "don't treat me like a sex object" and then they go out of their way to appear so but OMG don't effing notice it!! That is unless they want you to notice it then you're just an insensitive asshole.
Karsh
[–]ruzzno 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well, actually, that's not her boobs. That's from a show, but I guess in the end it's the same because it's some girl showing a part of her body that is not even remotely sexual or offensive, right? I don't get why showing your body is such a big deal. Don't tell me to "have some respect". That makes no sense. It's just a mass of cells and seeing it without clothes isn't going to harm you in any way. I'm just saying.
I know what you mean but its just the hypocrisy of "don't objectify me" but the only thing showing is so objectified.
[–]accountabilityishard 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It disgusts me to no end to read that bigoted vitriol, feminists like that are why I can NEVER reconcile with feminism.
[–]mordicaii 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women are not in power
Truer words have never been spoken. /s
[–]Unenjoyed 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That lady seems to have found her happy place.
[–]Scott2508 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
kudos to the powerlesbian who acknowledges it .
"I know you are but what am?"
I love when people make up their own definitions to words. /s
[–]Turbojelly 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Anyone can be XXXist, it's about descriminating against someone because of their sex/looks etc.
eg.
"All YYY are ZZZ" is pretty much the standard XXXist comment.
[–]amishbreakfast 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
From Merriam-Webster, Definition of SEXISM
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Bold added because I was really surprised to see it there.
[–]CRASNY 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's a complete fucking idiot right there. Sorry to be vulgar, but that's all it is.
[–]DionysusIsRisen 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How fortunate then that the definition of sexism is the one that suits you best.
[–]stestephe 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The heavily funded advertising against violence against women (only women) is based on the superstition expressed by one of VAWA’s founders, Barabara Hart: “our belief in the inherent non-violence of women.” http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/05/central-myth-of-misandry-inherent-non.html
Here are three collections of historical cases that serve to shatter the myth of “inherent non-violence.”
Acid Queens http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Acid%20Queens
Stepmothers from Hell http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Step-Mother%20from%20Hell
Murder-Coaching Moms http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/01/murder-coaching-moms.html
Because of this propaganda, our culture now treats female victims of women’s violence as second class victims, and boys and girls are second class victims as well. When an innocent man is attacked by a woman, the culture treats him as a third class victim, a crime victim who, according to cultural Marxist theory is not permitted by the culture to be seen as a crime victim, even when the perpetrator is captured and prosecuted.
[–]NWOslave 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The farce that women anywhere were ever oppressed is laughable. Men died as miners, blacksmiths, shipbuilders, ect, by the boatloads while women were safe and sound at home. Men must be the worse oppressors ever, they suffered far worse in every realm of society thoughout all of history.
In modern times there are less women in the west who work dirty dangerous jobs then there were 100 years ago. The ruse that women weren't allowed to work those jobs is just that, a ruse. They have that choice today, yet no women choose that. They do however get the jobs that command men to die in those dangerous jobs without having to work their way up. Modern women are handed jobs by the State that a man would have to risk his life and work to achieve. Men start at the bottom, women start at the top.
[–]ImpyLlama 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I understand your point completely, and yes, it is valid. However, claiming that women were 'safe and sound at home' is incredibly far-fetched to me. You're disregarding entrapment, just because they were fed and sheltered did not mean they were free.
[–]Aavagadrro 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh, so they are taking a page from the theist handbook and just making words mean whatever they want them to mean, regardless of actual definition.
How quaint.
[–]Kevinatorikablah 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Her name is "Powerlesbian", What were you expecting?
[–]Amunium 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Could just be a lesbian who worked out. One can hope.
i was really hoping her name was that for ironic purposes.
[–]Lasthcompany 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I guess she hasn't noticed...
Female presedents/prime ministers/leaders in places OTHER than the USA...
Oprah
Female CEOs
Women leading/providing entire families in some countries
"Women not in power", my ass. So closed-minded.
[–]Darkling5499 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
but amg there isn't a woman president in the US! it's proof of cisgender white male cispriviledge! you can't disprove it, because you're a cisgener white male with cispriviledge!
[–]iseetrolledpeople 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And when I made a joke yesterday about women logic a girl said that it wasn't nice... hm.
I guess this is how being a racist works too, that's why nobody gets the against whites racism.
[–]VirSaturnA 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People are driving their brains around with huuuuuge blind spots these days.
[–]LordOfGummies 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is by far the stupidest fucking thing I have read all morning.
[–]Riverscr 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
ist definition
So I would assume from that definition of ist that a sexist is one who's beliefs and ways of behavior are based around sex. Power structures are not a part of sex, they are the result of a societies throughout history. They regard sexes differently according to their own beliefs which can be described as sexist (or whatever ism you like). This person responding here reads as though they took an introduction to feminist theory class and bought every word of it without considering that though relations exist in history which make her not wrong (men dominating women in prior power structures) there is no way to claim that this is the result of just sex.
[–]OneWhoDoubts 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
women have boobs.. in my book that make us even.
[–]Duskman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Also, black people cant be racist against white people and men cant be rape by women. Furthermore, men should have their rights taken from them in favor of women. /s
[–]justsomeguyudontknow 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Okay, this power+prejudice propaganda is getting really stale. I'm fed up with it.
[–]cthulufunk 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's not "physically" possible? Her own words betray her.
Sexism = Predjudice + power
So she's basically saying women have NO power, and are total slaves to the patriarchy.
[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Come back to me when women have dominated and exploited men for the last hundred year or so
Has this woman lived under a rock for her entire life? Women across the world, in virtually all cultures, have exploited and even dominated men in countless difference ways for a lot longer than just a few hundred years or so. Have women really not been exploiting men for power, protection, shelter, food, income, children and/or any other lucrative gains and services for most of history? Have women really not been dominating men in other ways through personal means, sexual means, social reinforcement, peer shaming and other forms of privilege and power? "Oppressors" wouldn't be the ones doing most, if not all, of the working, fighting and dying just to keep you safe and content.
[–]damnfooldamn -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
Should probably have disguised the tumblr username, just saiyan'
[–]Gareth321 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Seriously though, the user voluntarily publicly broadcasts that information. It's not like we're dealing with private emails or locked accounts.
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
in that case...
http://powerlesbian.tumblr.com/
[–]Patrick5555 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
someone came orange sherbert in her asshole and she shat it out on this tumblr.
[–]iongantas -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
What does rape survivor even mean?
[–]slightlydipso 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
One who survives rape...
[–]Darkling5499 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
i think he point was that rape victims usually don't die from the rape. survivor implies that they risked not living because of the rape.
[–]slightlydipso 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But there are cases where people rape then kill the victim(s). Or the fact that rape can be severely traumatizing, and someone being able to return to regular life afterwards can be considered surviving.
(I'm not agreeing with anything that girl says, though, I'm just explaining why rape survivor isn't incorrect)
[–]damnfooldamn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is actually a very important matter when it comes to this discourse. The idea is that victim and survivor both have distinct connotations. I've seen it explained this way: would you describe someone who lived through the Holocaust as a Holocaust victim or a Holocaust survivor?
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Rape is not, by itself, something one generally dies from, which is why it seems odd. It's sort of like saying sun burn survivors.
[–]slightlydipso -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You have to realize how you're saying this, though. Getting stabbed doesn't necessarily kill you, it's usually the blood loss. But that doesn't mean someone who survived a stabbing shouldn't be considered a survivor.
Pl... please don't compare sun burns to rape...
Rape can transmit STDs, can cause injuries and lacerations, especially if the victim fought against it, the rapist could've hit or stabbed them. Rapes can cause mental or emotional trauma that makes getting through the day difficult. Yes not all rapes are violent but someone who can return to normal life after one should be considered a survivor because they definitely survived mental and/or emotional trauma and possibly survived physical abuse.
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well, in that case, I'm a depression survivor, because I haven't killed myself yet.
And stabbing isn't a good comparison, because stabbing often is intended to kill you and has a much higher likelihood (by itself) of doing so.
[–]slightlydipso 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Depression is really devastating, I'd have no problem with saying you survived depression.
You're right, stabbing isn't a good comparison, but neither is a sunburn, but that doesn't change the fact that rape can seriously hurt or kill someone.
[–]damnfooldamn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It doesn't necessarily call for an invasion. Which people here seem to be fond of doing? Shit, I know I'd hate it if I logged into my tumblr one day to see a shit-ton of notifications because somebody on reddit didn't like what I posted.
she could just as easily wake up to an inbox full of lovemail from like minded inviduals.
good with the bad and all...
[–]Gareth321 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree; it's never nice to wake up to a bunch of angry mail. But she did open herself up to that by posting that picture. When you broadcast yourself on social media on the internet you get the good with the bad.
[–]funwish 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Hmm didn't even notice. Is that bad?
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
To my knowledge, (not very familiar with tumblr) the tumblr page is analogous to a blog?
In which case that is fine, you are allowed to link to blogs no problem. As they are public.
Facebook profiles etc. are not allowed because they are not public.
[–]penikripa -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Since when is facebook not public?
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Facebook profiles are not intended to be open to the public, unlike a blog.
[–]penikripa 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I'm no facebook power user, but if I remember correctly, that depends on the privacy settings that are specified for each post. And honestly, if you're using facebook, you probably don't care about your privacy, so why should I?
[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
One must "add" someone as a friend on facebook.
The same is not true for blogs.
That is why we are ok with linking to someone's tumblr, or their own public website advertising their portfolio etc.
[–]penikripa 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Some blogs are private, some walls are public. The issue is not as black-and-white as you paint it.
Not according to facebook.
[–]damnfooldamn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A mod would have to chime in and clarify if it extends to tumblr but I know with things like facebook specifically, names have to be obscured
[–]Hessmix 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I see what you did there
This post is currently #200 of /all.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link
[–]Forgotten_Son 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Some were, some weren't. Just as some men were happy working themselves to death to support their family and some reluctantly complied.
Differences of outlook and experience like this are exactly why the idea of sexism = prejudice + power is so wrong. It assumes that all men had power over all women as groups because a small minority of men had political control. This ignores the complex class structures of past societies - the lady of a wealthy, landowning family unquestionably had more power than a man working on their estate for example - as well as the social power many women had.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
Depends on your definition of exploitation. If you told me I could never leave the home without permission, drive, vote, or think for myself and had to cook and clean for you in exchange for money and protection, I would call that exploitation.
[–]typhonblue 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
A man imprisoning his wife in his house was illegal.
Women could drive about when the automobile was invented.
Women were not legally obligated to cook and clean for their husbands; their husbands were legally obligated to maintain their wives financially, on pain of debtors prison.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Of course law and social expectations are different but you cannot deny that women had less rights than men and even after they were made equal they had much less expectations.
[–]girlwriteswhat 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Even I'm smart enough to not say that. There's a reason that a woman born in Afghanistan will live longer than a boy born in Brighton, UK--it's because she's told to stay safe at home, and not leave without a male protector. And of course she'd be expected to contribute to the family while safe in the home.
And before you get on my case about that, consider that there are prepubescent boys in Afghanistan who sell themselves for sex to support female family members--mothers and sisters--after their fathers were killed. They do this to spare their mothers and sisters the necessity of doing so themselves, and it is a role expected of them. Imagine being 9 and being told it's your duty to support and protect your mom and sisters no matter how it harms you, because you are the "man of the house".
Who's being exploited in THAT scenario? The mother and sisters safe at home, the dead father, or the 9 year old who sells his ass to keep his mom and sisters safe?
Most of the places where those restrictions on women exist are places where life is shit, and when you leave your front door you take your life in your hands.
[–]catipillar 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Therein lies the trouble: women are oppressed by being forced to stand by helplessly while someone else makes their life for them.
There's a reason that a woman born in Afghanistan will live longer than a boy born in Brighton, UK--it's because she's told to stay safe at home, and not leave without a male protector.
And when he dies, she's left to the mercy of his family.
You're told you may not leave your home. You spend your entire world raising and rearing a boy, whom you cook for, love, and teach. Then this boy goes out to whore for you, because you're not allowed to go out and make your own way, despite the risk, in order to protect this boy whom you've raised and reared, cooked for, and loved.
I know it was just an example, however, I'd suggest that Afghanistan isn't the best example by any stretch; their societal values are far from exemplary in regard to both women and men.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
To say men do not ever benefit from using women is preposterous. Of course women are over protected but you are ignoring the long history of control of their love life, careers, political aspirations, sexual freedom, etc... from men in society. And women whore themselves in Afghanistan as well, I do not see your point in bringing up one anecdote.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And you don't think a boy with an AK47 or doing tricks, is having his:
love life, careers, political aspirations, sexual freedom, etc
being oppressed?
Seriously, quit being gynocentric and look at the entire system.
Koby2012 OMG.
Afghan boy, fuck him what about the womynzzzzzzzz.
whatevs...
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I never said men were not exploited. It's not a competition.
I upvoted you.
[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
One anecdote? Seriously?
And no, I'm not ignoring the long history of control. I'm providing context.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Hold on, let me count how many anecdotes you provided. One... wait that is correct, one anecdote.
I'm providing context.
Your context is irrelevant to my point that women are exploited. Men are exploited as well, that doesn't stop women from being exploited throughout history.
[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
The context is that women were exploited in specific ways, and men in other ways.
Women exploited for sex; men exploited for provision/protection. Both of those can be taken to a serious extreme: the girl married off at age 13 in Afghanistan, and the man forced by his role to risk life and limb to protect and provide for that 13 year old bride (and then when he's killed at age 30, leaving his son to take on that role at age 9).
How about another anecdote? 10 million men died on all sides during WWI.
How about alimony? How about the fact that men used to be held criminally culpable for their wives' actions and debts?
How about the recent PSA from Obama et al, "1 is 2 many"? where men are told to "step up" when women are being abused? Yep, we're not exploiting men to put women's safety before their own there, are we? I mean, it isn't like interfering in domestic violence situations is dangerous or anything.
And of course, being feminists and for equality, they're totally also telling women to "step up and speak out" when they see a man threatening a woman. Oh wait.
[–]CLINTFLICKER 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Reading girlwriteswhat replies gives me the same feeling of satisfaction as a "hitchslap".
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Alright, we are in agreement then as I said in the comment you just replied to that both men and women are exploited.
I think this was a typo. You are trying to say feminists are not speaking out when women threatened men? Or do you actually believe feminists do not think women should not speak out when a man threatens a woman? I can assure you a big part of their idea to reduce domestic abuse and rape is that when you see it happen or it happens to you, you speak out.
[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
The PSA ad I'm talking about tells men and men alone to step up and speak up when they see a man threatening a woman, to intervene, to be protectors of women. Obama and Biden both make an appearance in the ad (as do celebrity athletes).
There's no mention of women doing the same.
VAWA is Biden's baby, and Obama is the feminists' darling. You have no idea how many times it was mentioned at the NOW conference that it was vital to women and feminism that he be reelected.
VAWA itself is gender-biased against men, and paternalistic in the extreme. A man who is assaulted by his wife in the US will find no help or shelter (other than jail, at least half the time), and find the legal deck stacked against him. VAWA--written by feminists--basically sacrifices battered men "just in case" the battering woman is in potential future danger from her husband.
Obamacare is another example of men being exploited for women's protection and provision. Under that scheme, male taxpayers will be paying for services only women are entitled to. In fact, in order to free up enough funds for breast/cervical cancer screening and "well woman" visits, under Obamacare, PSA blood tests for prostate cancer have been defunded. It certainly will free up money, since undetected cancer doesn't get expensive treatment, does it?
You might also consider that domestic abuse AND forced sex are not sexually directional crimes. At least, not according to the CDC. (I'm using "forced sex" rather than "rape", because the CDC doesn't categorize the most common type of forced sex perpetrated on men as rape. Oddly, when the CDC chose what stats to highlight and release to media, they were the less reliable lifetime stats on rape alone--1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men have been raped in their lives. They could have used the more reliable previous year stats, and a more inclusive definition, and concluded that 1 in 100 women and 1 in 100 men have been forced into sex in the past 12 months. Unfortunately, drawing attention to those numbers might have drawn attention to the fact that 80% of the people forcing sex on men are women. Not very chivalrous to point that out--so we erase the male victims so we can hide the female perpetrators.)
Feminists have zero interest in equality, and neither do many other members of society. What they are interested in is helping, protecting, provisioning and supporting women as much as possible, no matter who it hurts.
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link
Before I begin to reply, I just want you to remember not all feminist view all issues the same so generalizations are not really helpful.
The PSA ad I'm talking about tells men and men alone to step up
Yes, as a man I can remember being told this same thing in high school and college. When we see rape or potential rape, we should try to intervene. Women are told the same thing as well. You can look up any feminist organizations tips to reduce rape and find something to similar. Here is an example: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/sexual-assault-prevention/social-situations. "Watch out for your friends, and vice versa"
A man who is assaulted by his wife in the US will find no help or shelter.
This is horrible sensationalist. Women do get convicted for domestic abuse, especially since women are more likely to use weapons. The problem is men are less liekly to be harmed and without physical damage, it makes a more difficult case in court. Most statistics will point to more women being abused then men (85% of victims are women. So bills like VAWA make a lot of sense.
VAWA itself is gender-biased against men
How so? If you are an innocent man, what does the bill do to hurt you? I am actually curious.
Obamacare is another example of men being exploited for women's protection and provision.
Because women do not pay taxes right? I could not find a source that says Obamacare defunds PSA blood tests for prostate cancer.
You might also consider that domestic abuse AND forced sex are not sexually directional crimes.
I don't know what directional crimes means but if you are saying the number of men is equal to the number of women that get raped and domestic abused, you're wrong. I provided a link for domestic abuse above. The US Bureau of Justice states 9% of rape victims are male (Got this from wikipedia though). RAINN states about 1 in 10.
Edit: On my last point I forgot to mention, most men do not report when they have been raped and prison rape statistics for both men and women are under reported so the numbers may not be as one sided but there is still a slant in the data.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]funwish 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
That's a bit harsh, no? That's their kind of rhetoric.
[+]hardwarequestions -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
their rhetoric is they would exterminate people who don't know the actual definitions of words?
EDIT:
i guess i'll clarify.
can you explain what you mean by
That's their kind of rhetoric.
?
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
i have my pick and you have yours.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
i'd believe that if your response had been some variation of
we shouldn't exterminate anyone.
but instead, you posited that you had other groups in mind for exterminating before getting to the groups i had in mind. it's only logical for me to gather you indeed have your picks.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
out of curiosity, who would you pick?
That doesn't mean I agree with your original desire to murder exterminate.
big difference. "Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are a god." - Beilby Porteus
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Boring! child murder/rapist/abductor is the easy go to answer. everyone has a group of people they can't stand, besides the typical baddies. who would those be?
and what if its just a one time deal? what if you can only exterminate all existing child murderers, but would have no control over the people born tomorrow and later that will grow up to be child murderers? would you still pick that group? wouldn't you feel like you didn't really change anything?
if I could kill off everyone tomorrow that believed sexism = prejudice + power, then I could use the subsequent decades to ensure that belief never comes back nor gains influence. that's why I pick that group. in the long run, I feel that would have a greater impact.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]gnorwerauoy -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Patriarchal religion is to blame for historical oppression. I think feminists should focus in on that. Modern feminism is sexist in that they oppress males (regardless of philosophical justification such as "it's ok for me to do x,y,z to you because you deserve it but if you do the same x,y,z to me OMG sexism!").
[–]gqbrielle -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
misandry does real, but as a systematic form of oppression...not really EXCEPT IN SOME PLACES, like family court for instance, or domestic violence cases.
so, i can see the author in the screenshotted post's point, but i disagree, myself.
[–]hardwarequestions 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Systematic misandry in the courts is still systematic misandry. we should stop worrying about oppression olympics and deciding who has it worse and just start being against all forms of oppression.
[–]gqbrielle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i agree! 8D
[–]gqbrielle -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i agree.
[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is not a place for that kind of talk jackass.
Its not. Try /beatingwomen.
[–]ruzzno 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How ignorant. You're going to hate on her because she fell in love? My gosh, did she hurt you or offend you by being a lesbian? Did she hurt/offend anyone? No! What is so wrong about being homosexual? Don't bring her sexuality into this anyways. That's not what the arguments about. You're just trying find something to fight about because you can't come up with anything clever to say about the matter.
thanks for your input. If I need another angsty 16 year old's opinion who wants to shit on other guys because because he got shit on in high school, I'll call.
[–]tanalilt -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's amazing how people will take one post as the entire opinion of a group of people.
One feminist on Tumblr doesn't get it? Wow - they all must be sexist female pigs who hate men and think themselves far above all of us!
Not so. Don't let one person speak for a diverse group, especially if they are not appointed.
[–]lobby87 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The opinion on the picture is pretty common and the whole type of reasoning why it is not the same is even more common when justifing why it is ok for woman to do something and it is the same shit as "It is racis only when white do that"
[–]tanalilt -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I get the relation to the idea of racism, and understood that when I made the first comment. The problem is that it's not that common of an opinion - at least not in the real world. The internet often serves to amplify terrible opinions because people get upset about them, blowing them out of proportion in relation to the correct idea of things.
These people are not feminists. If they think they are, then someone should show them the definition of 'feminist'.
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Same shit, different day. Go away, troll.
Misogyny is never justified.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted] 194 points195 points196 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 123 points124 points125 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]radeky 50 points51 points52 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iquizzle 11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 43 points44 points45 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarylHannahMontana -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]jbuk1 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]lazydonovan 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarylHannahMontana 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ohgeronimo 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]digital_carver 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ohgeronimo 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]digital_carver 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne 9 points10 points11 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cuteman 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ENTP 24 points25 points26 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]jbuk1 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_weed_wizard 254 points255 points256 points (90 children) | Copy Link
[–]SarahC 68 points69 points70 points (59 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (45 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 29 points30 points31 points (42 children) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy 1 point2 points3 points (41 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 8 points9 points10 points (27 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thechort 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]thechort 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]2wsy -4 points-3 points-2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]thechort 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quazz 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Equa1 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]altmehere 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]anachronic 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kirkayak 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kirkayak 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FlawedHero 11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WhipIash 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]radamanthine 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ArchZodiac 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_weed_wizard 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jacksambuck 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]devotedpupa 6 points7 points8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 25 points26 points27 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 6 points7 points8 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]agiganticpanda 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bikemaul 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]agiganticpanda 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a_weed_wizard 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ejp1082 -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ejp1082 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Quazz 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]duglock 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lecks 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jacksambuck 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Daqqer -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Amunium 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 120 points121 points122 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 23 points24 points25 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RubixCubeDonut 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchizophrenicMC 9 points10 points11 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchizophrenicMC 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchizophrenicMC 2 points3 points4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SchizophrenicMC 4 points5 points6 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wordshark 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 57 points58 points59 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]drinkthebleach 83 points84 points85 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dolanduckaroo 26 points27 points28 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jacksambuck 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 50 points51 points52 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Saerain 23 points24 points25 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 32 points33 points34 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]deliriousmintii 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnakeJG 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]arch4non 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]unplural 47 points48 points49 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 7 points8 points9 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkling5499 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 13 points14 points15 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]picopallasi 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]unplural 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shorties 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]unplural 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dakru 36 points37 points38 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]he_cried_out_WTF 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BattleBrother 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ignatiusloyola 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]thrway_1000 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ABORTED_BABY_BUFFET 16 points17 points18 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TrashAudio 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TurdFerguson 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ABORTED_BABY_BUFFET 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TurdFerguson 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kirkayak 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kirkayak 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Silvercumulus 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]borderlinebadger 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]borderlinebadger 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Young_Zaphod 13 points14 points15 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]ch4os1337 7 points8 points9 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Young_Zaphod 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]THEAdrian 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shorties 4 points5 points6 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 11 points12 points13 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 6 points7 points8 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ZorbaTHut 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ohgeronimo 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]loose-dendrite 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImpyLlama 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]ImpyLlama 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MrStonedOne 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jisano 7 points8 points9 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Jisano 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]penikripa 12 points13 points14 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]funwish 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points (29 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (28 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]gnorwerauoy 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (7 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]picopallasi 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 4 points5 points6 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (15 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]picopallasi 2 points3 points4 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]picopallasi 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyImAlex -1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyImAlex -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyImAlex -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]HeyImAlex -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]picopallasi 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Amunium 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]therealxris 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mellowde 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoveMachine69000 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Danny-Dreams 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Jacksambuck 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TexasWithADollarsign 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TexasWithADollarsign 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Libertarian_Atheist 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LoneRanger21 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]The_Broken_Nigel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MyWorkUsername2012 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mab67 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]insanemetal187 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]alecbenzer 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]connekt2net 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CRASNY 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FreddyDeus 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheOnlyKarsh 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ruzzno 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]accountabilityishard 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mordicaii 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Unenjoyed 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Scott2508 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Turbojelly 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]amishbreakfast 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CRASNY 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DionysusIsRisen 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stestephe 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NWOslave 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]ImpyLlama 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Aavagadrro 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kevinatorikablah 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Amunium 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lasthcompany 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Darkling5499 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iseetrolledpeople 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]VirSaturnA 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LordOfGummies 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Riverscr 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]OneWhoDoubts 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Duskman 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]justsomeguyudontknow 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cthulufunk 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]damnfooldamn -3 points-2 points-1 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gareth321 13 points14 points15 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Patrick5555 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas -2 points-1 points0 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]slightlydipso 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Darkling5499 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]slightlydipso 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]damnfooldamn 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]slightlydipso -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]slightlydipso 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]damnfooldamn 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Gareth321 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]funwish 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]penikripa -5 points-4 points-3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]penikripa 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]penikripa 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]damnfooldamn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Hessmix 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (27 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Forgotten_Son 26 points27 points28 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 2 points3 points4 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 11 points12 points13 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[–]catipillar 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 0 points1 point2 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 2 points3 points4 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -2 points-1 points0 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]CLINTFLICKER 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -1 points0 points1 point (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]girlwriteswhat 3 points4 points5 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Bloodfeastisleman -1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (17 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]funwish 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]hardwarequestions -7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (14 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions -1 points0 points1 point (13 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (12 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]gnorwerauoy -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gqbrielle -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]hardwarequestions 11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]gqbrielle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gqbrielle -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hardwarequestions 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ruzzno 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tanalilt -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]lobby87 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tanalilt -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link