Video: Feminists attacked and vilified a woman who dared talk about female pedophiles

[–]Wimmywamwamwozzle 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Syntrel 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]Octagonecologyst -30 points-29 points-28 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]davou 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Completely disagree; women fought long and hard for things that they deserved.... problem is, that first wave of them never sat down with their heirs and explained WHY they needed to fight.

Early fems. managed to get recognized through tremendous efforts during wartime in the domestic workforce, earned themselves the right to vote and were recognized as potentially contributors to society.

Second wave fems burned their bras on campus while men went to war in asian countries and they managed to get themselves indoctrinated as a significant social science.

Third wave fems spout rhetoric in those classrooms they 'earned' (false statistics not exempt) and fight to block women from being punished for things like rape and molestation because they 'live in a patriarchal trap'.

The messages were good at first; they just never got passed on to the heirs of the movement.

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]davou 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Octagonecologyst 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]davou 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Octagonecologyst 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup, feminist nonsense in action right there. The things you just listed do have some logical explanations (In context of back then of course) In regards to owning property... what are we talking here? The mid 1800 hundreds? You see, men were far more likely to make uses of property that would benefit their government in some way, so they were allowed to own property.

The right to vote? Sigh... This is counter feminism 101, people. It's so insultingly basic that I'm not even gonna answer you on this one.

The right to attend university: Back then where gender roles were most prominent, the government didn't see much use in using valuable resources to educate women, as you didn't need an education to raise children or take care of a home. It's more or less them same thing when families sent only their boys to attend school and not girls.

[–]daman345 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]morris198 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]daman345 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]morris198 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Octagonecologyst -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]morris198 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Octagonecologyst 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Octagonecologyst -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZombieKitty 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]High_Five_______SIKE 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]curious67 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jahonay 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]sTiKyt 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ejp1082 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sTiKyt 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am aware that there are some feminists who fantasize that their ideology could survive in a stateless society. I have a lot of friends who are anarchists and they think it's pretty silly. And they've had lots of debates with anarcho-feminists and basically, the fems have to resort to shaming language in about 2 minutes because their argumentation is so paper-thin.

Feminism could not exist in an stateless anarcho-capitalist situation because a meritocracy will naturally favor the most intelligent, efficient, and productive individuals. I.E. more men than women.

Feminism could exist in collectivist stateless communities as long as everyone gave up their personal will to power for the will of the collective. Not bloody likely, unless it was a small community of a handful of very exceptional people.

TL;DR: Feminism can only sustain itself through wealth redistribution, either enforced by the State or the stateless commune.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're projecting. And you've got nothing but hypocritical MSNBC-style shaming language.

President Obama is essentially fulfilling the Bush Doctrine when it comes to the military. He has doubled-down on Afghanistan, followed the Bush timetable on Iraq, and even engaged in his own imperialism in the Middle East and North Africa. (Libya, Yemen, Pakistan.)

The Anti-War Right (of which I am a part) has consistently opposed every war the US has gotten involved in in the past 20 years. We opposed them under Republican and Democrat Presidents. Not only that, but we want to massively cut national defense. The Anti-War Left has VANISHED after Obama got elected. Hypocrites.

Republicans and Democrats are BOTH guilty of favoring special interests. And if that is a really big issue for you, you should look more into the Tea Party and the Libertarians, as both groups vehemently oppose crony corporatism and both are highly influential on the Right.

Your assertion that "health care, social security, actual education" when supported by the State actually improve society is unproven. Take education for example. The US spends more on education than virtually any other country in the world and we still suck at it. Meanwhile, school choice programs that have been PROVEN to work are opposed by the Left due to the heavy influence of the teacher's unions.

If you are a young person, you will be getting a NEGATIVE rate of return on your social security if the status quo continues. That means, the money you are paying in is actually losing value. If you think that benefits society, I really don't know what to say.

So, once again, all you got is MSNBC-style shaming language. You have also been unable to counter any of my arguments that the Left and female supremacism are like beans & rice.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're projecting. And you've got nothing but hypocritical MSNBC-style shaming language.

That's the third time you say "MSNBC-style shaming language" to me, and the second time after I've told you that I've never in my life watched MSNBC. Have you actually got anything interesting to say?

[Explanation of some pseudo branch of the Republican party that doesn't exist in real life]

So, you're saying that you're a tiny minority faction that's against what the Republicans do, but still support the party, and because you exist, the Republicans are great people... While everybody else are evil, because you say so?

[Explanation of how USA spends more money and gets less, completely failing to see that you're proving my point]

Exactly. The Republican way of life makes sure you get as little for your money as possible. Also take a look at your disconnect where you acknowledge that everyone else does it better, but then at the same time insist that doing it like everyone else does is 'unproven' and thus is out of the question.

So, once again, all you got is MSNBC-style shaming language.

Whoops, fourth time. Got anything interesting to say, or do you want to keep talking about a TV station I've never in my life watched?

[–]johnmarkley 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"So, you're saying that you're a tiny minority faction that's against what the Republicans do, but still support the party, and because you exist, the Republicans are great people... While everybody else are evil, because you say so?"

Cato Institute is one of the preeminent think-tanks in the country. They are anti-war conservatives and libertarians. Ron Paul is a major political force who enjoys support from the right and the left. He is an anti-war libertarian. Meanwhile, the Left went from "Bush Lied = People Died" to "Yeaaahhh!!!! Double-down in Afghanistan! Invade Lybia! Hoo-rah!"

And by the way, I didn't say that Republicans were great, I was saying that your characterization of the entire Right as warmongers was projection. And it is.

"Exactly. The Republican way of life makes sure you get as little for your money as possible. Also take a look at your disconnect where you acknowledge that everyone else does it better, but then at the same time insist that doing it like everyone else does is 'unproven' and thus is out of the question."

Oh come on. Government education is a government-run program. Social Security is a government-run program. Neither one represents conservative ideas or solutions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ThePigman -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm actually an atheist so the only sky-wizard I believe in is Superman. But that's some really nice MSNBC-style shaming language on your part.

And I think it is dreadfully inaccurate to apply social conservatism to the entire Right. Social conservativism is an influential voice on the Right mainly because it generates a lot of activism, similarly to Unions on the Left. But there are many other factions within the Right that are not social conservative. The supply-side fiscal conservatives don't care. The Tea Partiers are mostly focused on taxes and spending. The Libertarians want you to have consensual sex with whoever you want.

You might also have noticed that the biggest social conservatives running for Prez right now (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum) are getting killed in the polls. If we were all about the sky-wizard, that would not be the case.

On the other hand, there really is no faction of the Left that is not at least partially inundated by Feminism. Examples: Joe Biden, big Union guy, also big Feminist and notorious white knight. Bill and Hillary Clinton, big-business moderate Dems, also huge Feminists. President Barack Obama, intellectual academic Leftist, also big Feminist. Also note all the openly female-supremacist SCOTUS judges and legislation that has been passed and signed into law since O took office.

I will give you that chivalry does exist on the Right, and the Right in general is not doing a good enough job opposing Feminism. This is mostly based on them wanting to make women "feel comfortable."

But that is simply no comparison to the Left, which supports female supremacy whenever and wherever it can.

[–]umop__3pisdn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bananafanabobana 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProWomanAntiFeminist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silveradocoa 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDongerNeedsFood 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]altdetgoe 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Video: Feminists attacked and vilified a woman who dared talk about female pedophiles
Author	ProWomanAntiFeminist
Upvotes	235
Comments	63
Date	November 15, 2011 2:54 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/mckwk/video_feminists_attacked_and_vilified_a_woman_who/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/video-feminists-attacked-and-vilified-a-woman-who.1031710 https://theredarchive.com/post/1031710

Comments