The feminists deadliest enemy !

[–]ChunLiSBK24 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cakesmite7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Redxl110 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]musicmanrobv21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DR121710 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Should I assume this to mean you looked up the authors and concluded that their fields of study rendered them wholly unable to produce logical academic work instead of taking the time to read said work and judge it based on its evidence?

I absolutely agree with you that in a perfect world, biological parents would be unequivocally the perfect parents for every child that is conceived, but that is not the world we live in. And unless you support the government preventing couples from procreating until they demonstrate their capability as parents (which would be fucked up) we never will live in that world.

I also agree with you about political correctness. It is nonsensical and dangerous. But so is assuming that just because you pop a kid out means you're automatically more fit to raise it than anybody else. Just look at the thousands of stories on this subreddit about biological mothers who do evil, exploitative things to their children.

So, dear friend, thank you for wasting your precious little patience on this conversation. If I haven't run it out entirely, I hope you take a drop more time and answer why exactly you think biological parents are automatically best. All you've said so far is that it's as true as water being wet. I can touch water and verify that it's wet. But you have yet to offer anything (I'm still asking for studies, if you've got them) to demonstrate the supremacy of biological parenthood other than to flail your arms about and insist that it is common sense.

My parents were wonderful to me and my siblings and raised us with love. And that's because they're awesome, smart, compassionate people, not because they fucked each other and we came out of them. (Which they did do, by the way. None of us were adopted.)

Thanks again for taking the time to talk about this with me. I can tell you're frustrated with the conversation. Sorry to be the source of that frustration.

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You should assume I looked up the authors and they are pretty much self-proclaimed feminists. And yes, it makes them absolutely unable to produce logical academic work. Probably every sane person knows this perfectly, a shame on the west that so many people are actually idiots who take feminists seriously. Come on, just use your common sense for a goddamned second, do you actually believe that foster parents are better for children than their real parents? It is patently insane, and I mean this in the medical sense, like, a yellow house with barred windows insane.

That of course does not mean - as I have already said - that all bio parents are good parents and all foster parents are bad. There are bad people and there are good people, but having biological ties to your own children means you have a psychological/evolutional predisposition to not harm them and care for them more. But do I actually have to spell it out? Can you not imagine having your own babies and loving them more than random children from the street? Can you not imagine most people working this way?

edit: By the way, I'm not frustrated, but thanks for your concern :) There is a distinct difference between frustration, passion, and/or righteous anger. This time it's passionate for me, and this is responsible for my choice of words. I reckon there is a lot less fun in lots of conversations if you argue clinically :)

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sorry, it doesn't make irrefutable sense to me. I have personally seen too many people with awful relationships with their biological parents for me to think there's something super duper special about that biological bond. I can imagine having my own babies and loving them unconditionally and I can imagine making the decision to adopt babies and loving them unconditionally. I can't fathom having children and treating them like dirt but that happens all the time. Adoption is not about ripping babies away from perfect homes with their biological parents. It's about saving them from awful biological parents, or giving them a life of means that their biological parents could not have provided, for one reason or another.

But I suppose I need to bar my windows because I am totally loony for thinking that.

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I have told multiple times already, not all bio parents are good and not all foster parents are bad. I too have seen many bad parents but I have also seen horror stories involving foster parents. Anecdotes get us nowhere.

Yeah, you would love the child you're adopting but would you love him/her the same as your own? If yes, you're a saint and not representative of 99% of the population.

You should read up on CPS horror stories if you believe that children are always taken away from monsters and given to loving foster parents. Things are rarely black&white.

The thing I don't understand is if you grew up in an intact family why do you think foster parents are better? Do you seriously think it would have been better for you to have been adopted? I very much doubt it. You have some idealized image of foster parents like the aunt of Peter Parker but in the real world people are rarely ideal.

And let's play with this fallacy a little, if foster parents are better than bio ones, why don't neighbours swap children so it's instantly much better for everyone? :)

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

At least I'm offering anecdotes that demonstrate some level of thinking about the matter. You just keep saying over and over again that, "yeah, some biological parents are bad, but biological parents are better than adoptive parents"... How does that make sense?

I am 100% sure that if I made the decision to adopt a child I would love him or her unconditionally. I don't think of myself as a saint at all.

I don't personally think adoptive parents are better than biological parents in general. I think good parents are better than bad parents in general, irrespective of whether they are biological or adoptive. I don't think it would have been "better" if my biological parents decided to send me away. But I am positive I'd be just as happy with them as parents if they happened to be infertile and decided to adopt me from someone who couldn't take care of me.

Sure some foster parents are bad, but at least there's no such thing as unplanned parenthood when it comes to adoption.

I agree with you completely that things are "rarely black and white." Then why do you insist that parenthood is when it comes to biological parents versus adoptive parents? I just think biology has much less value in terms of a parent-child relationship than you think it does. Once more, I am begging you to explain to me why you think it is so irreplaceably valuable.

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It makes sense on average. Some bio parents are bad, but not all foster parents are good either. And on average bio parents tend to be better, at least as far as the fate of the child goes. And this is not rocket surgery, it is completely understandable if you accept that you can love kids, but being the actual parent of one can provide an emotional "boost", an extra bond that makes you care for them more. By saying foster parents are better, these feminist "researchers" practically claim that the parent-child bond doesn't exist, it's nothing. Which is of course utter nonsense.

You might think now that you would love a child unconditionally but being around him/her for 15-25 years may change your view about this. S/he may turn out to be a problem child, might get depressed when s/he finds out that s/he's adopted, etc. But let's suppose you do love them unconditionally, which is quite unlikely, but let's just suppose. Most people are not like that. If they can't even properly raise their own children, how much good they would be as foster parents? Raising a kid that's not even yours is an extra burden which is too much for most people and can sometimes crush even those who are better than most.

Now you might say that only "good people" adopt, which would be true in an ideal world we do not live in. Sadly all kinds of people adopt children, many for the financial benefits, for example. I am pretty sure kids suffer more domestic violence in foster care, I'm just too lazy to look it up. But I'd be willing to bet real money, in case a real study could be found on the subject (not made by antifamily lobbyists).

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But, again, although you keep saying that there's this super special bond that people can only have with their biological children, and that that's so obvious to you, but it really isn't obvious to me. I'd like you to show me that it exists somehow. I realize that since it's not a physical thing, that's difficult to do. But you have not successfully convinced me that it exists at all. Like the "patriarchy", merely asserting over and over again that it's real and common sensical doesn't make it so. ;) Show me something that demonstrates that biological parents are better on average.

I like to think that if I had a "problem child" I'd love them all the same. I don't think whether my sperm created them or whether I made the decision to raise them despite my sperm not creating them would change anything.

I definitely do NOT think only "good people" adopt. I think all kinds of people adopt and I think all kinds of people have biological children. That's why I don't think there's any correlation between good parenting and biological relation. Because shitty people make shitty parents and awesome people make awesome parents, and that is more relevant, in my opinion, than whose sperm and whose egg created the kid.

Also, I have to point out that "foster care" and adoption are VERY VERY VERY different things. The foster system is totally broken and based around the idea that kids need a temporary home where they're taken care of, fed, clothed, and sheltered, but not really loved. An adoption is a lifelong commitment to a child. Kids get hurt by the foster system immeasurably more than they are hurt by complete adoptions.

[–]Deansdale1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You fail to see this bond because you don't have kids. Maybe you should ask your parents about it.

I see your patriarchy argument and I say it is perfectly valid, although there is a huge difference between a family "blood bond" between people understood by almost everyone and examplified by acts of self sacrifice, and a pseudo-scientific social constructivist theory without any actual proof or backing. But yep, just constantly repeating myself is not proof, I know. I hoped somewhere along the line you'd just 'click' and suddenly realize what I was talking about, making the process of looking for scientific proof on parents' love of their children unnecessary. Oh well. :)

I can show you intact bio families are better than single-parent or SP+new partner families, but this does not explicitly cover adoptation. And again, I'm too lazy to spend much time looking for data, which might not even exist, because who knows if actual (and neutral) social scientists thought about comparing real parents to adoptation. But I'd like to think it is common sense that if a single parent + new partner combo is worse than dual bio parents then adopting parents will be worse too.

I definitely do NOT think only "good people" adopt. I think all kinds of people adopt and I think all kinds of people have biological children. (...) shitty people make shitty parents and awesome people make awesome parents

This is contradicting your original point. If you believe all kind of people adopt, how could they be better than bio parents? We're talking about the same group of people. The most you could say then is that all parents are the same, no matter if bio or adopting. But then again, it dismisses the bond which I still have no scientific proof of but will not search for one either because I find the notion silly :)

It is a silly cultural marxist notion that it does not matter whose child it is - believe me, it matters. You will probably realize this when you'll get to the point where you want children, your own children, I mean. It is totally different to meet someone and create life together from your own flesh and blood, carrying your (and your parents', grandparents') legacy, than to adopt some kid because s/he seems kinda nice. You can love both but it's not the same thing, and it will never be, no matter how much propaganda the "cultural elite" spit in our faces.

Adoption and foster care are different, but in my opinion both are worse than bio parents. It's a question of degree.

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry, it didn't "click". I will definitely ask my parents about it, and my sister - who has kids - because now you've got me curious.

And I agree with you 100% that intact families are better than broken families including single parent families. Obviously. But, yeah, I don't think anyone ever proved that adoption is bad for kids. Especially when you consider the sort of kids that are getting adopted.

I've got another anecdote - which I know you hate - but bear with me. I have a friend who was adopted by a single woman. Horrible choice, IMO to adopt a child as a single woman. She also happens to be nuts. Overprotective, controlling, the works. But this friend of mine was a girl born in China. I'm sure I don't have to tell you about how unvalued and demeaned girls in China are, especially poor ones. So my friend, even though her family is kind of shitty and her mom sucks, she still got the better end of the deal out of the adoption, considering the other choice was to remain in China, impoverished with her biological family. I bet you her crazy adoptive mom loves her more than the Chinese parents who decided to ship her overseas rather than care for her themselves ever could.

The reason I think this sort of story is important is that, even if you do believe that adoption is never as good as biological parents (which I still disagree with) it still does immeasurable good for children who happen to be born in situations like my friend. Or kids born to really really poor parents in America. Or kids born to unwed mothers. Or kids born out of rape or incest. Or kids born to abusers. Even if adoption was far shitter than it is, it's still far better than any of those situations. Which happen all the time. So, I think, adoption does a lot of good for society. And accepting families who decided to adopt children as legitimate families is important for that reason.

This is contradicting your original point. If you believe all kind of people adopt, how could they be better than bio parents?

Sorry, I think you still misunderstand me. I do not think biological parents are worse parents than adoptive parents. That study I found sort of says that, and I disagree with that interpretation. I'm sorry you find me not believing in the magical blood bond silly, but I don't believe in it! And calling me silly for not buying it will convince me about as much as feminists calling you silly for not believing in the patriarchy will convince you! ;)

But, like... Why does your blood matter so much? To me it really doesn't make much sense. If I ever have biological children, maybe I'll get your point. But when I think about my relationship with my parents, what makes it special to me is the care and love they gave me. Not the fact that I have their genes. Maybe they think of it differently. Like I said before, I'll ask.

I think foster care is so so far below adoption on that degree scale that they shouldn't be put in the same category. Even if adoption were worse than biological parents, adoption would be much closer on that degree scale to bio parents than to foster parents who are temporary.

Also, parents don't adopt "some kid they like". Most adoptions occur at or even before infancy. You can't really tell whether a kid is going to be "someone you like" yet. So they grow to appreciate that child as his or her personality develops just like a "real" parent.

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've got another anecdote - which I know you hate

Hey hey hey now, let's put down the glowing branding iron and forget about liberal stereotypes for a minute. "Hate" is a strong word I have not used in this conversation, so your attempt of smearing me with it is not very nice, to say the least. I said anecdotes are insufficient to draw conclusions from.

even if you do believe that adoption is never as good as biological parents

Which I distinctly do not believe, as I have said it seven(?) times now, some adoptive parents are good, some bio parents are bad. This is why I said you don't understand what I mean when I say average: average has nothing to do with never. It means sometimes it's better, most times it's not.

You come from the point of "there are lots of shitty parents who should have their children taken away", which is of course totally true. You also think that "most of the times adoptive parents adopt because they want children and are prepared for them, so most of them are fit for parenting", which is also totally true. Your two mistakes are 1. extrapolating from these premisses that all parents are the same (if adoptives are not better) and 2. using the wrong sources to support this claim, ie. feminist/liberal "research" tainted by sick ideologies. 1. That some bio parents are bad and some adoptive ones are good does not mean in any way that on average bio parents can't be better. 2. Learn to spot tainted sources and don't use them.

Of course we are still not settled on this "blood bond" thing but it is not something I can just show you on reddit. Why does it matter so much? Nowadays it don't because the state took over many functions of the family. In the old days you had to rely on your family because nobody else would help you. Why would they, you were just a stranger to them. Now the state gives you welfare and whatnot, loosening the family bonds. But this is just a side thought. Thing is, you are in a phase like most young women in the west thinking they don't want children. And then their clocks start ticking and they realize they do want children pronto. People sometimes do mature with age... But if you really can not understand the difference between you own kids and someone else's, I cannot help you.

Can you love a stranger like you love your mother?

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I did not mean to use the word "hate" to accuse you of anything. All I meant is that I'm sorry for bringing in an anecdote - "which I know you object to" would have been a better way to put it - even though I thought it was relevant.

And once more, you keep insisting that this special bond exists. The reason I keep bringing up that there plenty of bad biological parents is to ask - where is this bond then? Does it magically disappear among shitty people? Where is that bond when people are throwing babies into dumpsters or drowning them in bathtubs? Or beating them? Or raping them? I realize these are extreme examples, but to me they demonstrate that some kind of magical blood bond is merely a myth.

Again, I don't think of my mother as a stranger because she raised me from birth, took care of me when I needed help and loved me unconditionally. If all of that were the same, but she didn't happen to give birth to me, she still would not be a stranger, and I still would love her exactly the same.

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You do realize that step-parents are not helping you in this context because they are not related by blood, in fact they can be classified as a type of adoptive parents. (When you shack up with someone who already has kids you accept the responsibility that comes with them.)

Well, I read on and saw you did realize this :)

I guess it would be impossible to factor in the time spent together when comparing parents to strangers in this case. But there is the fact that the rate of victimization increases with reaching adulthood so as you grow up and leave the family your chances of being killed actually increase at least threefold. So it seems being at home with your family is not so bad afterall. Also, I see a graph saying 2 kids (anywhere between 0-17) are killed in white families per 100.000, and this even includes murders commited by strangers/acquaintances. This is not heartwarming but at the same time hardly an epidemic.

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I find the Men's Rights Movement appealing because it criticizes the length to which feminists go to assert that women are oppressed by men. To me it makes sense to conclude that people of either gender believing that gender roles as they have developed are perfect and therefore never to be deviated from have oppressed both men and women in different ways, rather than to conclude there's no such thing as gender-based oppression whatsoever.

At any rate, I think it is dangerous to dismiss people as "too stupid to contribute anything to science" based on one position they hold. Atheists tell theists that all the time, and vice versa. That gets us nowhere. Again, I say, look at the paper itself rather than trying to attack the beliefs of the writers outright. Obviously, bias should be taken into account. But it's not the only thing that should be taken into account.

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course I overgeneralize.

But I don't believe in "gender oppression", for various reasons. For one, "gender" is bullhsit. Let's call it sex. I don't believe in the oppression of either sex because they either oppressed themselves, which is a silly notion, or they were oppresed by the other sex, which is simply not true. People have accepted that there are certain traditions and restrictions placed on them by society, but this is not oppression, it's called living in the real world. A hundred years from now when weed will be legal people will look back and say people around the '00s were oppressed because they couldn't smoke weed. Do you feel oppressed or is it just the law?

But of course feminists believe in the intentional oppression of women by men, which is not only total bullshit, it's a very harmful lie undermining social understanding, empathy between the sexes and it perpetuates the retarded gender war we waste tons of resources on. It is in the top3 most malicious things ever concieved because it turns women against men for bullshit reasons. If you look at actual history, men carried women on their backs forever, and we would actually deserve recognition for it. Not me, personally, ffs, I mean men in general. Instead of this there are cretins out there talking about harming men to get back at them because of "historical oppression".

Now, understanding that the oppression of women is the most central tenet of the whole ideology, and without it it falls apart completely and immediately, it can be concluded that people who identify as feminists are either

Very young and naive, and know nothing about history. They believe the bullshit propaganda forced down their throats by radical ideologues, but there is hope they will wake up one day.
Complete idiots, who honestly believe that men oppressed women by doing all the dangerous and hard work while leaving their wives at the relative safety and comfort of their homes.
The ideologues referred to in #1, people who make a living out of bashing men and spreading lies, inciting hatred and sprewing their sick political propaganda.

Somehow I fail to see how any of these people can contribute anything to the social sciences. #1 and #2 are too stupid, #3 is intentionally evil, and all 3 are just mouthpieces of a misandric ideology.

Most feminist "research" on families boil down to two "findings": the traditional family and fathers (men) both suck and aren't needed. Cite me a study where feminists reach a different conclusion and then I'll reconsider my views. Not surprisingly the "study" you linked to reaches exactly these conclusions. It's either a coincidence that I was right about them or I am right about them.

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The study I linked to before says nothing about "traditional families" or men being unnecessary... It merely points out that people such as yourself often baselessly assume that "traditional families" are automatically better than "nontraditional families" irrespective of the thousands of variables that make every family unique.

Also, I'll have to disagree with you that gender is bullshit. There are plenty of actual people in this world who have chromosomes of one sex and brain structures analogous to the opposite. I am a man because for a lot of reasons, not merely because I have a penis. (Which I do, I am cisgender.)

I think you're oversimplifying feminism a little bit - as countless feminists oversimplify MRM. Obviously evil, idiotic, man-hating, radical feminists exist, but I do not think they are in the majority. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because our perspectives seems pretty much irreconcilable.

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

says nothing about "traditional families" (...) It merely points out that (...) "traditional families"

Do I see a contradiction here? It does say that traditional families are worse than artificial ones, ie. ones with adopted children.

But I reckon your problem is (ah, have we come to this?) that you don't understand the difference between single cases and the average. Of course - as I have said about six times - some foster parents are better than some bio parents but on average the opposite is true. It's like some women are taller than some men but on average men are taller than women. I'm not saying there's an inherent problem with foster parents, or that they're evil, it's just they are missing the biological bond and it makes their job that much harder, resulting in more failures even though presumably most of them are better than average people.

People with hormonal problems are people with hormonal problems, I fail to see them (being a zero point almost nothing percent minority) as a worthy cause for our cultures and societies to completely rework and redefine themselves, wasting billions of dollars and work hours on this project, and in the meantime introducing tons of bullshit non-issues into the lives of ordinary people who have nothing to do with all this shit. People with hormonal problems have somehow survived for millions of years without the other 99.9% being forced to deal with their "issues" like it's the most important thing ever. You know this whole shitstorm is meaningless when they even come up with a new phrase for "heterosexual", which means exactly the same, only it's new and feminist-approved. I am not "cis", I'm a normal heterosexual male, thank you, and I refuse to be pulled into this redefiniton of all language and meaning. "Gender" as such only has meaning for those who have serious mental/hormonal problems, for the rest of us it's only feminist claptrap designed to muddy the waters (which it does with frightening efficiency).

You can rest assured, the 3 groups I mentioned cover 99% of feminists. Also, let me tell you, they are the mainstream. The Hillaries, Harmans, Gillards, and even the Obamas and Bidens are all from group #3, and they rule over politics and the media.

Our perspectives are different, sure, but I'd like you to think about this for a minute. How come VAWA and Title IX are in power? Isn't that proof that radical feminism is mainstream? Do you consider for example Harriet Harman a moderate, or is she a radical? That Obama lies to the face of the american public saying there's a pay gap based on discrimination does not make you think there's something wrong with all this?

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You parsed that statement wrong. It says nothing about traditional families being unnecessary. So, nope, no contradiction. :) It points out that there are certain some adoptive families have over some traditional families. The main things it points out is that adoptive parents often go out of their way to "make up" for the fact that they're not biologically related. But that doesn't contradict the fact that plenty of natural parents go above and beyond too!

No, I do understand the difference between single cases and average. You don't seem to understand this: despite nearly every single one of my comments including a request to demonstrate that the average is exactly as you say it is, you have not done so. You keep saying that on average biological parents are better. How? When? Where? In what ways? You seem not to understand that "average" is not a word you can throw around with no evidence based solely on your own perception of things.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you about transgender people. Maybe they have a "problem" but the way they are treated is a much bigger problem than the way they are. What is the new word for "heterosexual"? I think I missed something in that paragraph. "Cisgender" just means the opposite of "transgender." Sexual orientation is irrelevant, so I don't know why you brought it up. Technically, transgenderism is irrelevant to our discussion too. The idea of "gender" wasn't invented for transgender people. Gender has meaning for everybody because what human beings are naturally and how we have grown to believe about our natural sexes is different. And that problem of conflating cultural gender roles that have developed over time l with "nature" is how men can be marginalized and discriminated against. They need to "man up" and their feelings aren't treated as as legitimate as women's.

[–]Deansdale0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pardon me, the idea that I have to search for scientific proof that most parents love their kids seemed too absurd to me. I have a kid and it wouldn't cross my mind that I could love an adopted kid just the same. I could love him as a human being can love another human being but that will never be near what I feel for my child. And I know this to be true for most other people too.

Well, it seems I'm too old for these types of arguments, where people question the most basic premises of human existence in the name of cultural marxism. I simply refuse to search for some dude in a white coat analyzing surveys concluding there is a bond between parents and their children. It's so absurd it's bordering on surreal, and it is really sad that we as a culture have come to this, that social deconstructivism have basically destroyed all the concepts our world is built on.

And of course your argument pretty much makes relatives into strangers, because if there's no bond and genetics do not matter, what connects them at all? They live together, yeah, but they could live with any other person because it's all the same. Well, what do I know, maybe neighbours should switch their kids and they'll instantly be better parents to them just because they are adopted.

Cisgender in one context means "normal", as in you have no hormonal problem in your brain. In an other context it simply means "heterosexual". In both contexts it is meaningless. "Transgendered" means you either imagine you're from the opposite sex (mental problem), or you're wired like them (hormonal problem), none of which affects more than .0some% of the population. Sorry, but I still fail to see how this is a huge social problem warranting all this fuss. "The way they are treated"? Most everybody treats them like normal people, probably because it's not written on their foreheads that they have this problem. If they feel they have to "come out" it's something in their own fate, so to speak, it's their mountain to climb to find a solution. It is patently insane for the whole of society to rearrange everything so as to better accomodate a microscopic minority of people. To put this in perspective, you cause trouble to a million to spare some trouble for one person, which might not even be trouble for them because what do you know, maybe many of them accept what they are. I fail to see the egregious harm society have done to these people in the past by... not even really acknowledging they existed. Maybe some of them were forced to "settle" in their dominant sex - if this would the biggest problem of people in the world, I'd say we live in heaven. I tend to think that if you sit down with these people and tell them that they were born in a male body with a female brain (or vice versa), and they have to choose between accepting living a male life, or having a sex change operation, they would understand. Not many of them would take to the streets burning down stores and cars to demand "transgender" toilets or sport clubs ot whatever. But of course it is not them who are making this ruckus, it's the bleeding heart liberal crowd who actually know next to nothing about them. They see them as yet another polcorrect victim group which can be used to bash hetero white men and demand the deconstruction of traditional society.

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I accept your personal ideas about it, but please don't presume to "know" how the other 7 billion people on this planet feel! It's okay that you think it's absurd for me to ask you to prove something that seems reasonable to you, but I please understand that it simply doesn't seem like common sense to me. Maybe that's the result of "times changing" for the worse. Or maybe not.

The idea that "the world is built" on blood ties doesn't make sense to me either.

Children raised from infancy by non-biological parents are not strangers. I don't know where you're getting this neighbor switching thing from...

Cisgender never means "heterosexual" in any context, ever. Cisgender people can be heterosexual and cisgender, and they can be homosexual and cisgender, and they can be bisexual and cisgender. Transgender people can be heterosexual and transgender, and they can be homosexual and transgender, and they can be bisexual and transgender. They are not even related, let alone interchangeable.

Your complete lack of understanding about transgenderism astonishes me and I am afraid I no longer want to discuss it because I don't think it will get us anywhere. I can only assume you believe they are treated "normally" because you have never in your entire life interacted with a transgender person. Yes, they are a small minority, but there is something biological going on with them that you are suggesting we ignore instead of address? Because that's simpler? For us, yeah, but for them, not so much. It's simpler for a transman to live as a man, because that is what feels correct and natural to him. And as a neuroscientist who looks at a scan of his brain will tell you, that is because it is correct and natural for him to feel like a man. Just because you want to think your penis is the only thing that makes you a man because that's simpler doesn't make it so.

Our discussion of adoption is more interesting to me, and makes me feel less like we are on opposite ends of the universe.

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I accept your personal ideas about it, but please don't presume to "know" how the other 7 billion people on this planet feel!

Let's not make this a dick size comparison but the fact that a considerable chunk of world literature and tons of movies talk about these bonds makes me think my idea is at least as good as yours. You think there are no such bonds, I say there are, and pretty much the whole of human culture would agree with me on this. Except from a few new ideologues, of course - some people not old enough to have children themselves, and young enough to fall for the latest cultural marxist fad. I'm not trying to attack you or hurt you, I'm actually pretty sad that a seemingly intelligent guy can fall for these misanthropic theories. One of the aim of cultural marxism was to destroy the traditional family, and they have almost completely succeeded in doing it if your attitude is an indicator of what the young adults of today think. It is indeed "times changing", for the worse. It saddenes me deeply.

Cisgender never means "heterosexual"

Well, I have seen people use the word with that meaning, I will forward your explanation to them :) But then let's clear this once and for all: "cisgendered" means you think your sex is what it actually is. Well, I'd say it's pretty meaningless. You can see some meaning into it, if you really try, but it is just a fancy way of saying you're normal, ie. you don't have a serious mental or hormonal problem just like an other 99.9999% of people. Well, duh. It is a way of saying there's nothing to say about you, you're healthy. It is exactly like saying "you're a nonzheimer" indicating you don't have alzheimer's. Do we really need a word to indicate you don't have a problem with your mental image about your own sex???

When a debate reaches the "Your complete lack of understanding" phase it's nigh impossible to salvage :) Believe me, I do understand where you're coming from, I just find it redundant/irrelevant/cumbersome. Not you, the idea you talk about. The bleeding heart crowd is constantly on the lookout for new victim groups, and when they ran out of them, they started creating new ones. One of the results is this poor excuse for a movement, whose advocates fight for the recognition and special rights of a one in a million kind of people who are per definition ill. They try to validate a hormonal/mental illness and elevate it into public consciousness, recognition and public discourse, shoving it into every possible orifice of bystanders. It's exactly like trying to create a movement for people with Guillain-Barre syndrome, arguing that healthy people are inconsiderate bastards for not assinging a lot more resources to these people's problems, that they have been treated appallingly, and we should consider their special needs in every aspect of society. In a word, bullshit. Real transgendered people (ie. not those idiots in it for the ideology or the fad) are literaly ill, can not be "cured" by simple methods, but at the same time their day-to-day life is not that harder. What does it mean for a woman to have a man's brain and wanting to lead a man's life? She wants to talk, eat, or sleep like a man? Be my guest. 99% of people wouldn't even notice. There are only a few things which can cause problems, like using the toilet for example, which is not that big of a deal really. If you're transgendered, please understand that you have to use the facilities designed for your body, ie. don't try to use the pissoire if you're in a girls body. That's it. If using the changing rooms and other such facilities according to your biological sex is unbearable to you, you have much more mental problems than simply being wired like the opposite sex. If you want to have sex according to your brain and not your body, you will have to join the homosexual crowd, a big deal in the 21st century. They have their own bars for christ's sake.

I am not saying they should be ignored, I'm saying they have a personal medical problem with which they should visit a proper health care specialist (a psychologist, a surgeon, whatever they prefer) and solve their problems so they can fit into society like every other human being must do. What good it is for them that feminists just keep on blabbering about transgender bullshit 24/7 with no specific aim but to "raise awareness", and to bash hetero white men? Because let's be honest, if it weren't for feminists, having a problem with straight guys like they do, this transgender thing would be nowhere. It was them who started the shitstorm with one simple goal in their minds: to come up with another way of saying men are crude barbarians, not understanding "other" sexual orientations apart from hetero (and maybe homo which all of them hate because they are crude barbarians). It was a kind of answer to the accusation that they are hairy legged lesbians. And they could fit this into their elaborate system of "gender", which is again nothing more than an attempt at saying that sexuality has nothing to do with what sex you are born into. It's a social construct! - they say about everything, because they're followers of social constructivism, a cultural marxist philosophy designed to be a weapon against the traditional west.

Are we on opposite ends of the universe? Bummer. Could you just imagine for a second what if I am right? You can go back to your way of thinking immediately :)

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's useful to have words for all sorts of things. Cisgender is a useful word to have because "normal" could refer to anything. If you're an abnormal person in some way but cisgender, you're not "normal". :P

When a debate reaches the "Your complete lack of understanding" phase it's nigh impossible to salvage :)

I know, and I didn't want to go there, but I think our positions on this are truly irreconcilable. That said, it is totally irrelevant to our discussion of adoption, so I think it's okay to drop it.

But I will address one thing:

Real transgendered people (ie. not those idiots in it for the ideology or the fad) are literaly ill, can not be "cured" by simple methods

To me, it's like saying someone with six fingers cannot be cured by surgically removing one of them. They'll always have six-fingers deep down and they should just get over it. Lol.

I am trying to imagine you're right, and I really do see where you are coming from. But since I have met and spoken to transgender people, I cannot assume their day-to-day lives are awesome, or that they're making themselves into victims, as you seem to think. Considering you've (probably?) never spoken to a transgender person, I don't know why you presume to know how they experience the world.

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't consider a sex change operation a "simple method", that's all I meant. If a transgendered person could be cured by cutting off some unnecessary bit from their hands we wouldn't have this conversation.

I never said their lives are "awesome" :) It could be, but it always depends on the person. If the guy with no legs ands arms (his name evades me atm) can have a happy life, it could be hilariously easy for any transgendered person, given the right personality (no lame psychological pun intended). Anyways, I said their life is not that much harder than any other people's. If one can accept his/her medical situation with any kind of grace then it's only a question of being a girly man or a manly woman. This is not the end of the world. Since transplanting brains is not yet viable, and sex change operations are convoluted and expensive, I fail to see any other way of dealing with this problem than accepting it.

Funny how if a dog loses one leg he just goes on using 3 legs and doesn't get depressed, but humans are capable of so much self pity and intentional immersion in self-made emotional problems that it's debilitating for them. The first step in dealing with any problem is assessing and accepting the situation; evaluating the cards you are dealt and figuring out what to do with them. This artifically inflated transgender discourse only interferes with this, taking the control over their own fates out of the hands of these people. "You are victims", goes the political agenda, "you have been victimised by all the other people but we will help you by re-educating the whole of society". This is indisputably the worst approach imaginable. First of all it is a lie, transgender people were not "oppressed" by anyone, and this creates a false sense of victimhood in them not only hampering their healing process but antagonizing them against others. Second of all it puts a strain on society because people try to figure out this bullshit and want to help these guys out but since it's total bullshit nothing gets done and people just get frustrated. Finally this is a false promise which can never be fulfilled because it is totally, absolutely impossible to completely re-educate society this way. We will never reach a stage where activists will say "we have reached a point where everyone is understanding, accepting, and helpful towards transgendered people, so, problem solved". Will never happen. So we have just started yet another endless intrasocietal propaganda war like the war on drugs, only now it's a war on "transgender phobia". And it consumes endless resources, time and effort, and will lead nowhere.

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For transgender people, sex changes and hormone therapy are much simpler solutions than simply living as if they were their birth sex. I've said it a few times, and I'll say it again: if you ever talked to a transgender person, you'd know this.

I think a combination of trying to get society to be more comfortable with "outliers" and those "outliers" trying to be more comfortable with the fact that they won't always be treated exactly the same as everybody else is the best approach. In other words, I don't think it's unreasonable for transgender people to expect not to be beaten and harassed. Even though they are a small minority, I think it's important that society at large realizes that beating and harassing them is a huge problem and needs to stop. At the same time, I think transgender people need to realize that for some people there will be an "ick factor" that will not go away. Getting mad at people for being icked out by them does not help.

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You know what, if you are looking for the era where "outliers" were beaten by gangs you have already missed it by ~3 decades. Nowadays flogging society like it's a horde of barbarians who beat those poor "abnormals" to a pulp on a regular basis is just a dishonest political tool to manipulate the gullible. We have gay bars and gay marriage, I'd say we're past the phase where talking about the harrasment and beating of "othersexual" people was valid. Society have accepted them a couple of decades ago, now it's their turn to try to fit in. Well, to be exact it's the bleeding heart crowd's turn to stfu about imaginary bogeyman and "widespread" but invisible discrimination of a minority whose members cannot be identified by any other means than self proclamation. Unless we think there are street gangs with portable EEGs scanning random people's brains for signs of transgenderism and beating them.

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not saying you are from the bleeding heart crowd. But I very much doubt transgendered people are beaten on a regular basis - it sounds fake. Look out your window and tell me you see gangs beating up people just because they wear pink shirts or something. 30 years ago you could see gangs beating homosexuals on the news, nowadays not so much. Don't base your opinion on what activists say, they will mislead you given the chance. Look at the world with your own eyes and accept what you actually see.

Well, I have to admit I never had a knowing conversation with transgendered people, most of all because I don't live in the US and around here we don't deal in that much bullshit. I have gay friends who were never beaten or harassed. I might have talked to transgendered people without knowing they were one, but I find it highly unlikely because actual transgendered people are somewhere around one in a million, which means there are about 2 of them in a city of 2M people. Good luck finding them.

What I honestly believe, and this is not something I want to invalidate your experience with, just what I think, is that the people you have spoken to were not actually transgendered people, just confused 'youths' messed up in the head by hormonal rushes, conflicting emotions, media messages and of course the ever loudening political propaganda against being, well, normal. Since being a hetero white male is the worst crime ever, some young people come up with stupid shit trying to avoid the stamp. And of course there are the feminists who wear their nonconform sexuality as a badge of honor, their sisters wouldn't even accept them without it. Last but not least, in fact this might be the largest group of pseudo-transgendered people, is homosexuals who simply can't accept that they are homosexuals and it seems highly tempting to them to accept transgender theory as a poor excuse. You know, "I'm not gay I just have a woman's brain, it's not my fault". I would bet a 100$ any day of the week that 9 out of 10 people in the modern west who say they are transgendered are actually simple idiots.

But of course there is a possibility that you work at a clinic or something and you deal with actual transgendered people on a daily basis :) If that is the case I might be willing to listen a bit more closely to your words :D

[–]cygne1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A quick search informed me that .3% of the adult population in the US is transgender. Which means 3000 per million, way more than one in a million. You made your number up. http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Transgender-by-the-numbers-2342726.php

That survey said 35% of them were physically assaulted at school and a whopping 12% experienced sexual violence at school... And this is in New York state, one of the most "liberal" places in the country.

You're wrong about the transgender people I have met. I don't have any way to prove to you that they're just trying really hard not to conform or that they're secretly gay... But, they're just not. Once more, if you'd ever had a conversation with one, I think it would be pretty obvious to you that your current "theory" is totally made up and baseless.

Although, in some countries where being gay is illegal people choose to get sex-change operations to be with their partners so they don't get put in jail. Iran, for example has tons of sex-change operations and most of the people who get them do not consider themselves actual transgender. But in America I do not think getting a sex change operation for being gay is actually a thing. At least, I've never heard a single story about it. Also, some transgender people ARE gay. Meaning, if they were born a woman, they could be a gay transman, as in, attracted to men. They're not straight women because they aren't women.

I would love to take your $100 lol.

I don't work in a clinic. (What is a trans clinic anyway? :P) I'm at a university. A couple of my friends from high school and a few acquaintances here are trans and I've spoken to them about their gender identity. And reducing their experience to idiocy seems so beyond ridiculous to me. I'm not asking you to "feel their pain" or to assume their lives are filled with inescapable suffering at the hands of straight men. None of the ones I know think that way either.

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The numbers seem way too inflated, they eerily sound like the world championships gold medalist bullshit "1 in 4 women raped at campuses". I can not force myself to believe half of them for the life of me. You know, I was young once, I went to school, even to a university, and I have never seen anything like any of this. Whatever-sexuals beaten, trans-whatevers behind every corner, this is positively surreal. When 1 (as in: one) gay guy was beaten by a gang in my country it made national news and the scandal was huge. And this was a good 20 years ago, when the situation was much worse than it is nowadays. I know the US is full of idiots but it's still too much to believe. My problem is that I am old enough to have witnessed the times changing, and I saw with my own eyes what it is that actually changed: liberal bullshitters popped up everywhere and started parroting their propaganda. The world did not change, only a lot of gullible people perceived it differently. 20 years ago everybody knew rapes are extremely rare, which they were and still are. But then these idiots started coming out of the woodwork and spread lies about rape being rampant. More and more people started believing them because they used many philosophical and conversational techniques the general public knew nothing about, so they fell victim for this simple manipulation. The result is that nowadays there is a large group of people who believes that rapists lurk behind every bush, and people who say it's a lie are evil. But of course there are the harder kind of statistics which still show that rape is extremely rare, for example most universities in the US report less than 10 cases of sexual assault a year (some of them have only 1 or 2 cases). How does that add up to "1 in 4" is beyond me but this never bothered the ideologues.

Why am I talking about rape? Because it was the same process with gays. A couple of decades ago everybody knew that gays existed, but nobody wanted to harm them, apart from a few skinhead groups who were aggressive idiots anyway. But then the liberals started saying "everybody hates gays because everybody is a nazi (apart from liberals of course)" and that homophobia was everywhere. Of course everybody knew this was total bullshit, only a couple of young, naive SJW types got fooled. But with enough time their camp grew bigger and nowadays you can't throw a handful of ratshit out your window without it hitting a bleeding heart preacher of the evils of homophobia on the face.

The same with racism.

The same with sexism.

And the same with transgender bullshit. I watched in awe for 20 years how all this bullshit got shoved down the throats of stupid people, who now honestly believe that we live in a world where every white is a racist, every men is a sexist, every hetero is a homophobe, and that all the stupid othersexual shit is everywhere, like half the population is bi, transgendered or thinks they are catfish.

And of course all this bullshit produced its own clowns who parade in the roles written for them, like feminists attacking themselves with their own sockpuppets saying they are harassed, other feminists saying 7 out of every 4 women gets sexually assaulted every day (including themselves of course, they speak from experience), youngsters watching retarded TV shows and publicly announcing they are gay because once they thought the idea of kissing one of their friends funny when they were jackass drunk, or their SO in their hetero relationship left them and it hurt them badly. And I could go on forever, but I don't think many people have the patience to read all this :) But of course anyone not living under a rock knows what LUG means... This whole western existence is a circus and unwitting useful idiots are the clowns in it.

And it's getting worse by the day.

Of course everybody with more than a dozen working braincells knows this is only so much bullshit, our whole culture gets systematically feminized by the powers that be, and this can't go on forever, because we will soon reach a point when everybody else will realise we are all insane. Sweden is the utopia of liberals and they have the 3rd highest rate for rape in the whole world because they already radically de-masculinized themselves and they have no tools to protect themselves from immigrants. Who laugh at the feminized swedish men and rape their women by the dozens.

I got a bit sidetracked :) We're going to hell in a handbasket and probably nothing can save us, because the youngest generations are the most retarded. They were raised by Hannah Montana and Facebook, which left them mentally crippled. They have the attention span of superglue and are attention junkies trembling for their next dose. And in the mean time they believe with a fiery determination that women are oppressed by men, blacks can't be racists, traditional values are just manifestations of evil and the government is there to help them. The poor bastards, I already pity them for the experiences waiting for them.

So, you can call me a right wing fossil but I laugh at these liberal "studies". Yeah, sure, two 8 year olds getting into a childish shoving match screaming "you're a fag" is a case of discrimination, a homosexual was assaulted for being gay! Oh the horror, spare me. Maybe I'm ignorant because I cannot see the invisible gangs waiting near every school, looking for obvious homos to lynch them on the spot.

Well, that's it for today, thanks for reading, if you're still here.

[–]cygne2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Oppression" is an industry in the west. It produces its own numbers. Never trust any stat or research which is made by people whose employment depends on their own "findings". Why do you think professional feminists living on federal buck "find" at least two orders of magnitude more assaults than the police? If they would admit for example that rapes on campuses are vanishingly rare, most of them would be fired the same day.

And at the same time this industry creates its own victims. If you tell someone enough times that some other guy have wronged them, they will start to believe it and will blame this other guy for all their problems. Again with feminists: they blame everything on men (sometimes they call men "patriarkee" but it really is the same). If she does not get the job she applied for it's the patriarkee, if she gets it and it turns out to be boring it's also the patriarkee. If men look at her they are sexist pigs objectifying her; if not, they are sexist pigs with shallow beauty standards. You probably know the drill.

It is unbelievably easy to create an illusion of oppression/discrimination; you just have to gather stats about the two things you want to compare and (statistically speaking) half of these stats will prove your theory no matter how outlandish it is. I will now prove to you that airline pilots oppress miners. First of all they earn a lot more on average, a clear sign of discrimination. They have better benefits, suffer less illnesses and live longer. They have higher status in society. These poor guys suffer deep in the darkness of mineshafts while those bastards fly high in the sky. And since we know for a fact that everybody is equal, this must be the result of discrimination! Pilots oppress miners, it's clear as daylight. This is exactly the same bullshit story about men oppressing women, feminists just pull some cherrypicked numbers out their asses and carefully ignore the other half of the equation.

It's also very easy to cook the numbers. Any numbers. You just have to ask the right questions in your survey. "Have any of your partners convinced you to have sex when you wasn't really sure you wanted to?" Dang, 90% of women has been raped. A third of weirdos has been physically assaulted at school. 107% of whites are racists. All men are evil.

If you look around you will see that there are two distinct lines of thought in any social science. One says the same thing what you might arrive at using common sense, the other is full of far-out claims. The first group consists of a bunch of ordinary people researching social science, the second group without exception consists of people with a staunch ideological commitment. There is Martin Fiebert without an axe to grind saying both men and women commit domestic violence at the same rates, and then there's feminists claiming no women would ever commit any violence but all men are thugs. You can tell who made the study by looking at its results. And this is why I can't take most of your sources seriously, and why I can't take feminist "research" seriously. I can tell they're ideologically tainted by looking at them.

Yet another stupid wall of text, what the fuck is wrong with me? :)

[–]TheFarnell10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFarnell-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFarnell2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFarnell0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheFarnell1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DavidNatan10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]evilebert15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D821 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]12Redcoat957 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kronox-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1525152 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341124 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Typokun1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341122 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Typokun1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341121 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lurlur3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maschalismos-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	The feminists deadliest enemy !
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	154
Comments	84
Date	May 14, 2013 1:14 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1eb8n9/the-feminists-deadliest-enemy/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-feminists-deadliest-enemy.1612635 https://theredarchive.com/post/1612635

Comments