~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminism in a nutshell

Shadow_Of_

May 8, 2020

166 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Feminism in a nutshell
Author	Shadow_Of_
Upvotes	166
Comments	105
Date	May 8, 2020 4:13 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/gfm54r/feminism_in_a_nutshell/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/feminism-in-a-nutshell.660894 https://theredarchive.com/post/660894

Comments

[–]basiliskgf36 points37 points38 points 6 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2SJW9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

In fairness feminists are the ones who tend to deny class issues in favor of gender issues.

They ignore that the ruling class is made up of both men and women
They ignore that society is run by both men and women
They ignore that the oppressed are both men and women

This is in fact one of the biggest criticisms that socialists have of feminism, and is honestly one of the biggest flaws of feminism in general.

Once you start saying "men are also harmed by patriarchy" and "women also enforce it and benefit from it", you're no longer talking about a patriarchy, and are instead talking about class.

To put it into the words of a 19th century socialist:

The highest development of modern capitalism, as exemplified in the English-speaking countries, has placed man to all intents and purposes, legally under the heels of women. So far as the relations of the sexes are concerned, it would be the task of Socialism to emancipate man from this position, if sex-equality be the goal aimed at. The first step on the road towards such equality would necessarily consist in the abolition of modern female privilege.

https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/page/n80/mode/2up

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (40 children) | Copy Link

Once you start saying "men are also harmed by patriarchy" and "women also enforce it and benefit from it", you're no longer talking about a patriarchy, and are instead talking about class.

I... no. Thats not what that means. I get what you're saying, I think. But you're over-simplifying it to the point that it doesn't mean that anymore.

The rest of your post makes sense if you compare hyper-capitalist 'lean in feminists' to 'socialists' as a group. But as I'm sure you are aware, those do not represent all or most feminists, and that feminism is not a unified force of 'fuck men, and nothing else matters'.

The way that there is a huge overlap - and correlation - between people that consider themselves feminists and those that consider themselves socialists would... kind of suggest otherwise? Unless you think that one or both of those groups is somehow entirely mislead about what those things are.

And maybe you do think that? But

They ignore that the oppressed are both men and women

What exactly do you think intersectional feminism is? You think that someone who says "Poor disabled black gay men are never oppressed because they're men!' is going to get resounding high fives from the rest of modern feminist club?

While some of the identity feminists and the anarchists and the Marxists do indeed tend to squabble like children about which hierarchy to dismantle first, and everyone rolls their eyes while in the background Trump gets elected - mostly people seem to agree that is a bad thing. Have you had ANY contact whatsoever with the modern left?

I don't want to be snarky to you, even though I like being snarky and thats the best thing about purge week, just... I think you're putting the onus on "things distracting from the class struggle" in the wrong place. And my original comment was because its a pet peeve of mine - manosphere men throwing class oppression in the face of 'women' "ARE YOU SAYING THIS GUY'S LIFE IS GREAT?!?" as if working class women don't exist, because they completely misunderstood what 'privilege' means.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You think that someone who says "Poor disabled black gay men are never oppressed because they're men!' is going to get resounding high fives from the rest of modern feminist club?

"Men are never oppressed because they're men" is par the course for feminism, and this directly contradicts Marxist ideology.

There is a lot of open hostility from socialists directed at feminism in more than a couple leftist subs on Reddit, especially some of the more edgy "anarchist" subs. You might not see it if you hang out in feminist spaces (or in the moderate left which is really just centrism) but there is a lot of history here. The publication I referenced earlier is from 1896, for example (technically this predates feminism, but the women's movement was around back then). And feminism itself has more in common with conservative ideology than most lib fems want to admit to.

[–]reLincolnX0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

I think maybe I'm going to have to start putting this in a Word document:

"Privilege" refers to - and this isn't a definition I'm pulling out - but the best way I've found to understand it:

Not experiencing a particular type of oppression - having the 'privilege' of not having to overcome a particular hurdle.

So take for example a black person who is talking about finding it difficult to find a mentor as a budding lawyer (and for the sake of argument you need one), because all the lawyers seem to mentor people who 'remind them of themselves', which seems to almost exclusively mean 'white'. That system worked fine when the buddying lawyers were all white, but now its meaning this person can't get a break.
If you say "As a white person, I don't see a problem with that, work harder", you are speaking from a position of privilege. Because if you were in that situation, you would not have to overcome that barrier.

Now maybe you're not also a budding lawyer. You're a white gay disabled coal miner. It might well suck balls to be a white gay disabled coal miner. And this black lawyer... and I mean you don't know them well... but it sounds like they come from a lovely middle class family who sent them to debate camp. While your family never knew how they were going to pay for the next meal.

So it seems kind of ridiculous that you could be 'privileged' in ways he isn't. But you are. Because... in almost all instances, if you were also black, it would be worse. I mean, it was hard enough for you to get the mining gig while gay and disabled - never mind black on top of it. And technically if you found yourself in his position... you would be able to get a mentor easier.

That is what 'privilege' means in this context.

That is a ridiculously extreme example taken to the almost absurd, but the point is that its not about your worth, your whole life as an individual - its about the privilege of not having to think about certain types of societal oppression because they don't apply to you.

This subreddit is weird. Because in some ways, I get that dating as a man, especially a not attractive man, must be hard in ways I can't fully appreciate. And maybe with feminism, it feels like they're telling you that your life is sunshine and roses, but you feel shit, so its like... you're turning the tables? When you say "Everything in your life is HANDED TO YOU ON A PLATTER!". And I get that you're angry. But at least... there is sort of a structure and a perspective behind feminism, whereas this just seems like detached rage.
The whole 'privilege' thing is essentially an attempt to explain why other people frustratingly brush past your difficulties, that isn't just 'they're a dick' or 'you're a little bitch'. At least it offers a framework of understanding both perspectives as those of conscious humans?

Like on another thread, I was talking about short guys and dating, and body shaming and shit. And multiple people were saying "You don't get how empty and hollow it is to say you think of a dude as worthy, but not fucking him - it's the not getting fucked he cares about". And from hearing that... it makes it seem like being a woman is different, in the sense you're used to your fuckability being sort of... the entirety of your worth. Everything you do is tinged with "Thats nice, but unless you're projecting what men want... you're just a shadow emulating full personhood, a thing aping a being, becomes men's role is to be people and women's role is to breed more people." It's really hard to put into words. But the gist is that to have men and other women say you can have real worth and regard to them outside of fucking men and birthing men... actually means a hell of a lot. Like, intimacy would be nice but... it still really means something for a man to say you have human worth, even if he wouldn't 'select you as a mate'.

So maybe you could say I have some 'pussy privilege' because having a hole gives me inherent value to you. Maybe there is even something in that. But unless you're willing to actually listen to my explaining why we maybe don't 'get' that other human decency is meaningless, and just shout "NO! NO YOUR LIFE IS EASY!" - I can't take you seriously.

....

Sorry I got a bit side tracked there. Anyway - privilege is a specific sociological concept relating to specific types of oppression. It doesn't mean a privileged person's life is great. Suffering as a person with privilege isn't an argument against privilege, even if its shit for you as an individual.

[–]reLincolnX0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Like I thought, you're as hypocritical as any SJW is... Thanks for your answer

You guys complain about how women communicate, but this is one of the most bitchily passive aggressive things I've ever read.
"Thanks for confirming all the things I already knew to be true. I'll file this one in the self-righteous spunk bank. wink"

You are playing the gatekeeper of the Temple of Suffering and you get to say who suffer and who don't

Actual opposite of what I said.

Words have contextual meaning. "Privilege" means something different in a sociological context. I just informed you of that.

I don't know what else to say other than to go through what your English teacher was supposed to teach you when you were 9 years old, but just because they somehow got paid without doing their job I'm not going to do it for free.
(Ooooo see I can be passive aggressive as well)

[–]reLincolnX0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys complain about how women communicate, but this is one of the most bitchily passive aggressive things I've ever read.

"Thanks for confirming all the things I already knew to be true. I'll file this one in the self-righteous spunk bank.

wink

"

Honestly, I'm sorry about that. I acted like a pussy. You're right to call me out on this. But you should read your like-minded friends, they are also very good at it...

Actual opposite of what I said.

No, it's actually what you're doing. I could go on explaining to you what we call "victimhood" and the "Olympic of Suffering" but since you have it harder than me I fear you won't take it seriously... You seem to be a good girl, you should maybe give it a look...

Words have contextual meaning. "Privilege" means something different in a sociological context. I just informed you of that.

Ah yes, I know dear, sociology is a social science without political ideologies shreds into it. It's like Gender Studies or Ethnic Studies... It's politicly neutral...

You're great at being passive-aggressive. I like it, keep going

[–]Kellkur0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

If you say "As a white person, I don't see a problem with that, work harder", you are speaking from a position of privilege. Because if you were in that situation, you would not have to overcome that barrier.

And you know that how? This is the thing I don't get with feminists you women think what all of us men experience no matter what and more so think it is a universal experience. The same applies to women where you feminists think all women are victims and never had any privilege.

At least it offers a framework of understanding both perspectives as those of conscious humans?

Feminism doesn't even offer any framework. It offers a religious view point from the female point of view. As afterall feminism was created by women for women from the female point of view. I mean feminists get so much stuff wrong when it comes to men and our experience its not even funny. But again feminists don't care to listen or hear men out, but demand men listen and shut up when it comes to women telling men how women are always the victim and men are always the oppressor. And feminists wonder why the manosphere is growing

it still really means something for a man to say you have human worth, even if he wouldn't 'select you as a mate'.

Do you not think the same applies to men? I would argue women are overall valued more than men are. As there's a reason male disposability is a thing but not female disposability.

But unless you're willing to actually listen to my explaining why we maybe don't 'get' that other human decency is meaningless, and just shout "NO! NO YOUR LIFE IS EASY!" - I can't take you seriously.

And that's the kicker. You want us to listen but you don't want to listen in return. Yes I know men here rant and rave all the time, but its one of the few places that we can as we know as long as we obey the rules we wont' be banned.

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

And you know that how?

Because if the barrier you'd have to overcome is "The barrier that specifically black people face for being black in that circumstance", and you're not black - by very definition you're not going to experience it.
You might experience a barrier for other reasons, but not related to being black.

It seems 'well that is just tautological!'. You're correct - it's a word describing a social phenomena, which explicitly acknowledges that phenomena as being dependent on an oppression existing.

So you can argue "I don't have White Privilege because black people don't experience oppression related to being black, I don't believe in systemic racism at all, just a few bad person racists who have no real impact on black people's lives".
I might disagree with you there about systemic racism and the amount of/impact of racism. But the "I don't have White Privilege because..." bit would indeed be a correct assumption based on your later premise. Yeah, fine.

"I don't have White Privilege because my life is hard, in fact harder than a lot of black people" isn't an argument against 'White Privilege'. Because... you might be entirely correct about the second part, but your conclusion doesn't follow from it.

Do you not think the same applies to men? I would argue women are overall valued more than men are. As there's a reason male disposability is a thing but not female disposability.

I thought it did apply to men. Until (some of) those men were like "WE DON'T CARE UNLESS YOU SEX WITH US! HYPOCRITE!".
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other, and those men aren't representative.

Want me to listen to your problems and acknowledge that, as I am not you, I cannot fully understand your lived experience? Ok, I'm up for that.
Want me to agree that using 'virgin' as an insult is wrong in a similar way using 'slut' as an insult is wrong? Yep, agree with you there. Using 'virgin' as an insult is both bullshit and reflects a general social expectation that is a problem.
Want me to agree that shaming and insulting men for their height counts as 'body shaming' and is actually a real and significant problem which impacts shorter men? Yup, on board with that.
Want me to consider that men (working class and poor men in particular) have been historically seen as 'disposable' in terms of being cannon fodder or industrial fodder, generally more 'socially disposable' than similar women? Ok, I think thats actually a good point for us all to think about. I'm already pretty onboard with the whole Marxist analysis thing, and it fits well with that actually, seems like gender interacts. I'm not going to agree that "because you have slightly more value as back up breeding stock" helped/helps women experience feeling important and respected either. But I still think your general point about how when we're talking about women being seen as 'breeding commodity' and how that feels shit, we ignore that men are perhaps in a similar way seen as 'industrial commodity' which must also feel shit, might be valid. Maybe we don't think about that enough.
Just want... someone to chat with if you feel lonely and isolated? A buddy? I'm down with that. I might need a break once in a while - I know from both supporting loved ones with depression and my own experiences with that, you sometimes need to take a step back to protect your own sanity for a bit. But I'm still up for being friends, if that is what you want. This part sounds weird and creepy, but... I'm just trying to say that in general, some of them seem like people I could just generally chat with, and would be up for that.

BUT

Am I going to agree that it's 'fair' and 'natural' to allow one half of the population less bodily autonomy/sexual rights/socially pressure them away from their own sexual agency because "80/20 rule and I don't have a girlfriend". Nope. Plus, most people find sexual/romantic/life partners, and are at least generally happy with them, so even if your dating pool isn't as hot as you think they should be considering x/y/z... yeah finding it hard not to be a little indignant about people arguing that as a clear excuse to take away my bodily autonomy and agency. I'm fine with you being sad about not having someone, I think that is a valid feeling and I do honestly feel bad for you - just don't think women should be treated worse to fix it.
But whatever - if you don't want that, I'm not trying to strawman you, it was directed at the people who do.
Am I going to agree that men 'have it worse overall', have always 'had it worse overall', and women asking for more (beyond maybe 'the vote' and 'to own property') is bullshit? Nah. Starting with 'classic philosophy', the assumption that men are the whole-citizen and women a deviation, that men's place is society and women's the home, seems to obviously make it hard for us to enter 'the society' properly. I think that our (feminists) arguments and efforts in that area were, and continue to be, valid and justified. Now I know that it's complicated, and that being a man through all that wasn't roses and sunshine either. Maybe in some ways being in the home was nice, but it's also fine to have a problem with being made to stay there.
Maybe you disagree, it seems from what you said that you do. But I'm OK with us disagreeing, as long as we're both reasonable about the points we're making.
Basically I agree that 'oppression olympics' discussions aren't going to get us anywhere, so I'll stop with all that if you will.
Do I think that the concept of "The Patriarchy" oppresses men? Nope. I agree that the patriarchy itself constricts and therefore oppresses men, and the concept is a good way to understand all the stuff in my last point.

I do get that maybe you feel "people just keep telling me feminism is for me as well, and that all my ideas about my oppression/suffering have to fit into their ideas or I'm wrong, but it seems to be that it isn't enough and they're not really listening". OK. Fair and maybe even valid point.
But also I'm used to being barraged with "BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN!!" points that were very clearly in no way in good faith, but about thinking I'm an uppity bitch and should just shut the fuck up.
So... I'm open to the idea that maybe you sometimes have reason to be dismissive of me, and if you're open to the idea that I sometimes have reason to be dismissive of you... we can move on.

A lot of the time I try and have a conversation about the above points, which as I laid out many of which I agree with, I just get a lecture about how I'm just another deluded SJW snowflake bitch the moment I disagree with anything. That doesn't seem productive, or fair - if I'm trying to engage with their account of their own experiences and then they just keep insisting my account of my own is brainwashed delusion.
I'm not a perfect saint who must be right about all this, and I probably can be dismissive of experiences I don't understand... but I'm also not going to be responsive to being lectured about how I'm just full of shit with all this. Because I'm pretty sure I'm not.

.....

I've typed all this out because I believe that some of the people who say "All I'm looking for is some respect and compassion" - both self identified 'MRAs' and 'incels' but also just generally sad and angry men - do genuinely mean it, and maybe we've had our wires crossed. So I wanted to put out there where I'm coming from - and maybe if I lay out some of the places I agree (and some I don't, just incase they're deal breakers), they'll be more likely to think I'm not just coming at them aggressively.

I can say with my hand on my heart, that if what you're looking for is someone to listen and to try and be kind and to work together in us both making sense of it all... I want to do that. You can think I'm lying about that. But I don't know what else I can say? I'm trying to 'show with my actions and not just my words'. I just... can't do that by just straight up agreeing with takes that I don't think to be correct, and it isn't fair to expect that.

[–]Kellkur0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

It seems 'well that is just tautological!'. You're correct - it's a word describing a social phenomena, which explicitly acknowledges that phenomena as being dependent on an oppression existing.

You don't need to be oppressed to not have privilege. More so the whole privilege thing is really is do you have advantage over someone else. If so your privileged. Somehow feminists don't seem to get this and blow up privilege into a whole boogieman. I can only wager they do because heaven forbid feminists admit to women having privilege for being a woman. Prime example women getting less prison time for the same crime. Even though feminists acknowledge that issue they never admit to it being female privilege, its benevolent sexism because of course women can't be privilege as according to feminism women have no power as if you need power to be privileged.

I might disagree with you there about systemic racism and the amount of/impact of racism. But the "I don't have White Privilege because..." bit would indeed be a correct assumption based on your later premise. Yeah, fine.

So me saying I don't have white privilege because where I live I am a minority as a white person is fine?

Am I going to agree that it's 'fair' and 'natural' to allow one half of the population less bodily autonomy/sexual rights/socially pressure them away from their own sexual agency because "80/20 rule and I don't have a girlfriend".

One the 80/20 rule is idiotic. Incels and RPers cling to it because they think looks is the only way to get women as a man. That isn't to say women more and more aren't pushing for men to look more physically attractive though as they are. And everyone has sexual agency, but that doesn't mean everyone wants to have sex with you either.

I think that our (feminists) arguments and efforts in that area were, and continue to be, valid and justified.

That is obvious. I also notice you said nothing about stopping the whole women have it worse, so I can only wager you think women no matter what have it worse than men. To that I say do some research and actually inform yourself. I don't think men have it worse than women. I think each gender have it worse in various ways. And its not all due to men and masculinity (ie toxic masculinity) like you feminists think it is.

Basically I agree that 'oppression olympics' discussions aren't going to get us anywhere, so I'll stop with all that if you will.

So why even start it?

That doesn't seem productive, or fair - if I'm trying to engage with their account of their own experiences and then they just keep insisting my account of my own is brainwashed delusion.

It may not be productive, but if you at all can look at what feminists say and think how a non feminist will take it. As saying things like the "partracy" (which doesn't exist) and what have you are going to be seen and be taken differently by others. You feminists have a huge problem with not learning how to talk to non feminists. This is besides basically all of your theories and stuff on gender is well crap. I and others can tear up nearly all feminist ideology because so much of it is from academia which is so far removed from reality its not funny. More so all of feminism itself is from the female point of view. There is no male point of view within feminism. So feminist view of the world is from the female point of view. You even admit you don't know what my experience is like yet you feminists want to blame masculinity, for men's issues. You feminists never want to hold women accountable for anything just the men. This among other reasons is why anti feminists call bullshit. Especially when we see the same talking points over and over again all with the same lies behind them.

that if what you're looking for is someone to listen

With the whole listening thing, in my experience when feminists say they want men to listen to women its men need to shut up sit down and listen. Its a one way conversation that is really a lecture on how men are bad and women are the real victims. If you and more so feminism in general to make actual progression, you going to need to get feminists to listen to men. You have men now who want to speak out on their issues. Ya some go whatabout the men, but its not like feminists do that all the time with women's issues when men's issues come up. But if you want to make progress actually engage with the men who go whatabout the men. More often not if you show you do want to converse they will. As its those men who want to be heard. And I wager a good portion of those men have been hurt. You know the very men you feminists claim to want to help but don't?

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

You don't need to be oppressed to not have privilege.

You do. In this context. The one people are talking about when they say 'white privilege' 'male privilege' etc.

Not in the more general non-sociological term of 'privilege', aka 'holistically as an individual, you have been more lucky in life than most'. But that is a different kind of privilege.

where I live I am a minority as a white person

'Minority' being another word that has different contextual meanings.

It can mean a numerical minority, which is I assume the way you're using it. "There are more of the people in that group present than the are of the people in the group I'm in present".
But when used social sense it tends to refer to a power minority - where it means the amount of wider social influence or general social clout due to being in one group (acting in your group's and therefore your own interests) or another. 'Power minorities' do tend to also be numerical minorities, at least in wider society, but not always. So say a US community can be 60% black people, but they can still be 'a minority', as long as systemic racism still exists.

You might think the language is dumb and misleading. You wouldn't be the only one to think that. (Personally I think its actually useful and clever in the way that it makes you confront your expectations, and consider the world from the perspective of other social statuses rather than just about your own individual life. But whatever.) It must however be acknowledged that this isn't just something that 'SJWs' came up with yesterday - the language has been used in this way for ages.

You're still using the words 'wrong', if you actually mean to speak to the people using them about the concept they are referring to. And that isn't necessarily your fault at all - how are you to know what a word means in a context unless you've encountered that word in that context before?

Just all over the place I see the exact same type argument:
"Privilege... [uses one meaning of privilege]"
"This person is wrong! Because [uses arguments that only hold if you use the word differently]."

And it's obviously silly.

So why even start it?

In terms of this thread or this subreddit... I didn't. I don't like that shit.

When it's a conversation between 'MRAs'/'TRP'/etc, it tends to be in response to statements along the lines of:
"Because the feminazis have gone too far and now its clearly far worse to be a man! Only a total idiot can't see that being a woman is fantastic and being a man is shit in todays society!".

However - has there been a history of some feminists getting 'oppression olympics' when someone has raises a legitimate social issue not to do with the patriarchy? Absolutely. I've seen it as well.

There are the moneyed white feminists who will insist that if we had more female CEOs, all of everyone's problems would just magically get fixed, and are seemingly oblivious to the teensy little bias they might have there. They are absolutely a thing.
Luckily - the other 'SJWs' hate them as well.
I think people have got a lot better at quickly pointing out the bullshit and moving on, though, in the last decade or so. For all the hate 'intersectional feminism' gets, it's a really useful tool for confronting those who are ranting about how another person's power means they can't understand the problems, while refusing to acknowledge their own privileges.

Thats where the whole 'check your privilege!' meme comes from. It's not mainly said to poor unsuspecting dudes just going about their day. It's mainly something the feminazi SJW BLM activist neo-Marxist vegans are shouting at each other during The Discourse in the echo chamber.

The reason why I struggle to take the 'anti-feminist' (as opposed to people just disagree with feminist points when they disagree with them) narrative seriously is because it treats 'the feminism' as some monolithic force of propaganda, a unified mass of people who "blame us for all the problems" while never looking to question or criticise within their own ranks.
When in reality calling each other out for being 'problematic' is at least a good half of what feminists talk about. It's the main reason why we can never seem to get shit done.

If you're wondering why people can't just... sensibly talk to each other while reflecting on themselves, and instead call each other satan while refusing to admit their own flaws:
It's because people are awful, teenagers are especially awful, and Twitter needs to be killed with fire.

Seriously though - there are plenty of actual grownups who have productive conversations about The Society while really doing the whole 'checking their privilege' exercise rather than just shouting it at each other. We're not perfect, and I am not the best of them, their mouthpiece or leader - but I can vouch that they tend to be pretty chill, as long as you don't strut in their raging about how they're delusional nazis who don't care when men get raped.

The self righteous tumblr children might be more fun and easy to mock. But if you think about what you already know about how humans tend to be, you can see how maybe it also applies within the leftist/feminist/'SJW' population, and is just that ol' human tendency to be sometimes be myopic dickheads, rather than the natural conclusion of the ideas themselves. Or "Why the feminisms is wrong and I must stand against it".

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The one people are talking about when they say 'white privilege' 'male privilege' etc.

Which at this point is nothing but a generalization and is about luping all whites or men in a single group. There is no context. Its about generalizing and treating whites and men as a monolith. That is very clear. You can go on about "not all men" all you want, but as I said language and how feminists frame things is part of the problem here. As you feminists justify saying men are trash and men are rapists. You don't all think how men are going to take such a thing. But if one says women are sluts that's misgony and how dare one generalize women! I mean you feminists are nothing but hypocrites and just twist language to your liking.

You're still using the words 'wrong', if you actually mean to speak to the people using them about the concept they are referring to. And that isn't necessarily your fault at all - how are you to know what a word means in a context unless you've encountered that word in that context before?

No I am using them correctly as how they are defined in the dictionary. Feminists like yourself like to make up meanings for words so that you can make them fit your narrative.

I think people have got a lot better at quickly pointing out the bullshit and moving on, though, in the last decade or so.

If you mean feminists here this is utter bullshit. Feminists have not done any such thing. In fact they have double down on their bullshit than anything else. Now if you mean non feminists then I agree as more people are calling out feminist bullshit more and more. And that people are finally holding women more accountable which you feminists clearly hate.

The reason why I struggle to take the 'anti-feminist' (as opposed to people just disagree with feminist points when they disagree with them) narrative seriously is because it treats 'the feminism' as some monolithic force of propaganda, a unified mass of people who "blame us for all the problems" while never looking to question or criticise within their own ranks.

And yet you feminists treat MRA's and anti feminists as a monolith and do exactly all the things you blame them of doing. Bit ironic don't you think? Its also not like you feminists criticise your own ranks. Ya you may go after TERFS, but you feminists as a group stand behind women like Amber Heard or Asia Argento when they do bad and not at all criticise them least not publicly as that be sexism and misogyny according to you feminists. But openly saying men are trash and rapists is totally okay thing according to feminists.

It's because people are awful, teenagers are especially awful, and Twitter needs to be killed with fire.

lamo. If you think that is why people can't talk sensibly you are beyond wrong.

Seriously though - there are plenty of actual grownups who have productive conversations about The Society while really doing the whole 'checking their privilege' exercise rather than just shouting it at each other.

Where are they? They certainly not on social media or in the media even. If there was loads of these people surely you can point them out.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which at this point is nothing but a generalization and is about luping all whites or men in a single group. There is no context. Its about generalizing and treating whites and men as a monolith. That is very clear.

Look. 'White privilege' exists to try and understand racism so we can stop people experiencing racism. It acknowledges how white people aren't going to notice systemic racism against black people all that much unless its super obvious (which is the 'privilege' referred to). Social phenomena aren't like physical objects and that makes them hard to pin down, but if you're going to do something about them, you have to give them a fitting name. So they did.

The context is 'race is a thing'. It would probably be a lot better is race wasn't a thing. But it is. And despite the 'but if the bleeding heart lefties keep talking about race, we'll never enter the post racial utopia' argument... no longer saying that part of the population keep getting treated worse because [reason redacted] isn't going to magically make [reason redacted] go away. If I genuinely thought that if 'we' stopped talking about race people would stop being racist, I'd do it.

I've explained to you how it doesn't mean your individual life is easy. Or that white people don't have problems. Or actually mean anything other that white people don't experience systemic racism in the way black people do. 'Yes all white people'... are not black. Even if we can find a black person who has not experienced anti-black prejudices that don't apply to you (not just from the people on your street but your whole community which is THE WORLD) - your being not-black still influences the likelihoods of what is going to happen to you tomorrow. Thats all you need to acknowledge for 'white privilege' to be a thing.

You keep lecturing me on how it treats white people as a monolith who don't experience barriers or suffering. I'm a white person who experiences barriers and suffering - including those 'male privilege' wouldn't save me from either. You don't need to tell me what that is like to be a complicated individual in the context of the complicated real world. I can see some black people whose lives seem much better than my own. I know.

I - also a white person with genuine life struggles - can also see that I probably don't notice as much of the less explicit racism against black people, because I'm not the one being racist-ed at. And that might bias my view of how much there is, unless someone points it out to me. (It really shouldn't need stating that everyone has perceptual biases, and if you didn't you would... well, not have a human brain. But there you go. I stated it.)
And even if I somehow did see it as much because I have superhuman perceptual powers, I would have the privilege of being able to ignore it if I so wished.
I can see how that isn't to be understood as a suggestion about my worth or intelligence or moral character, and it instead a description of a social phenomena. That applies black people - as a group. And all white people - because all white people aren't black.

There is no one 'black experience', but ALL white people don't experience 'being black'. That isn't 'treating them as a monolith', its just the obvious logical outcome of there being a social category called 'black.

And if I explain all that, explain why you have no reason to be offended by it and how it doesn't treat white people/men as a monolith, but you still feel that way... kind of tough shit? I don't see another option apart from ignoring the impact of racism, and.... no.

[I've put this part in the bold because I think its why I always want to keep arguing with this and not just ignore people. You don't like how the term 'white privilege' sounds like it's making assumptions about your life. OK. But I imagine you don't like racism either. It feels like people keep shifting the lens away from the actual problem and won't just LOOK at it. And maybe if they got it, they'd... stop doing that.]

As I said earlier - descriptor of a social phenomena, that needs to be described in order to combat it and help people. If you're offended by that even when you've been shown that you don't need to be - that doesn't trump the need to help people. Maybe you'd prefer it if we just talked about how racism is bad. But that isn't going to change society as a whole underestimating racism (even when white people are well meaning and agree racism is bad), because it avoids confronting why that is. So... not good enough.
I'm not going to self flagellate over the fact that in some (BUT NOT ALL) ways I'm lucky. I didn't choose to be born into an unfair world - the only moral obligation I can see is to survive, and make it better if I can.
You can spiral into existential death logic over the fact that the things you - OR ANYONE INCLUDING BLACK PEOPLE - have achieved might not be entirely down to inherent grit and bootstraps, if you want. But don't. It's pointless and dumb.

Ya you may go after TERFS, but you feminists as a group stand behind women like Amber Heard or Asia Argento when they do bad and not at all criticise them least not publicly as that be sexism and misogyny according to you feminists. But openly saying men are trash and rapists is totally okay thing according to feminists.

I don't really know how to respond to this and the rest of your post without just repeating myself. So... refer to the stuff I already said.
Unless you just want to say that I was wrong/lying about the stuff I said. Which... OK. I wasn't, but OK.

Where are they? They certainly not on social media or in the media even. If there was loads of these people surely you can point them out.

You know what, I did consider linking you to a few places, including a couple of subreddits.
But I don't think that the majority of 'anti-feminists' on this subreddit are mainly looking to have a productive discussion in good faith. Even if it's subconscious. At worst they'll troll, and at best post the same talking points they get/address constantly in an attempt to 'prove' them/me wrong.
And I'd prefer not to be the cause of that, in the productive discussion places.

So just... think I'm lying, or that 'the feminists can't take criticism', if you want.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

'White privilege' exists to try and understand racism so we can stop people experiencing racism.

"Only whites are racists". And you want blacks and hispanics to stop experiencing racism, not people. As saying people means you want whites to also stop experiencing racism but as you clearly shown and as feminsits often say white people don't experience racism.

It would probably be a lot better is race wasn't a thing.

Race and gender totally social constructs right? Even though actual science says otherwise.

You keep lecturing me on how it treats white people as a monolith who don't experience barriers or suffering.

Because you are. As you said yourself just because a white person may suffer individual they don't as a group. That is treating whites and that matter men as a monlinth. Somehow female privilege doesn't exist because ALL women are victims but ALL men are privileged and ALL whites are privileged. I don't expect you to see how you treating these groups as a monolith, but you very much are when you label a whole group as being X.

It feels like people keep shifting the lens away from the actual problem and won't just LOOK at it. And maybe if they got it, they'd... stop doing that.

Here's an idea change the language being used and how you frame it. As I told you before one of the problems with you feminists is how you frame things and use of language. This is besides you not listening even though you said you would, but not like I believed you would listen.

Unless you just want to say that I was wrong/lying about the stuff I said.

I was more pointing out how you feminists are hypocrites really than anything else. And how you and that feminists treat others as a monolith. You can otherwise as much as you want, but your not on the opposing side of feminism so you don't see it. Nor will you ever see it because you think otherwise.

Let me ask you this do you think RPers in this sub treat women as a monolith and that are you okay with them saying stuff like women are sluts?

But I don't think that the majority of 'anti-feminists' on this subreddit are mainly looking to have a productive discussion in good faith.

That I agree with but again this sub doesn't have many productive conversations anyway. That said I am talking about other subs and other social media platforms.

that 'the feminists can't take criticism'

In my experience they can't by and large. So often least on reddit I don't even make it 5 replies from them before they are getting bent out of shape. This is common experience for us anti feminists. Granted we aren't all nice and all, but its not like feminists are even being welcoming to discussion, but again when you having your own bullshit called out on so often I can only think one gets mad. And yes feminists do spew a ton of bullshit. If you don't believe me pick any gender issue and I can show you the bs. I mean I did that with my reply to you on academia. Linking you things showing how crap feminist academia is. By the way I can link you more stuff on feminist academia if you want.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Only whites are racists"

You put that in quotes like I said it, but I never did.
Absolutely people who aren't white can be racist. I've seen minority groups be super racist to each other, for example.
And people can be racist against white people (as in, judge them or be cruel to them or whatever because they don't like white people).
However, the systemic racism that, for example, impacts black americans is different. Because - systemic. Not because white people are bad. Or worse than black people. Because culture.

As you said yourself just because a white person may suffer individual they don't as a group.

Don't as a group suffer from systemic oppression on the basis of their race.
When you say "don't as a group" it makes it sound like you think I'm saying (or are trying to characterise me as saying) "Individual white people might suffer in life, but white people mainly have lives with no suffering". Maybe you don't but just to be clear - that is not and has not been what I'm saying.

Let me ask you this do you think RPers in this sub treat women as a monolith and that are you okay with them saying stuff like women are sluts?

Yeah. They tend do (but not all of them). And I'm not okay with it.
But if you're going for "So when they say all women are X its just like when you say all white people are Y!", you've totally missed the point.
There is nothing wrong with white people. All white people don't hold any particular characteristic. White people don't experience systemic racism. That is not a characteristic. Its a thing they don't experience.

Here's an idea change the language being used and how you frame it.

No. As I said. I listened, and said no.
Because you want me to sanitise it and pretend that systemic racism isn't real. But then systemic racism won't change because we won't look at it anymore. So I won't. I'm happy to change language to something 'nicer' you like better if its possible while still truly tackling inequality. But in this case it wouldn't work as well in doing that. So... sorry, but no.
To be a bit glib but maybe help get my point across: correct terminology doesn't care about your feelings.

You might like this one:
You're a victim of oppression. Black people have privilege.

The first one... okay, I don't know for sure. But... probably. Most people are part of some 'social class' in some respect that experiences stigma and oppression.
The second one - I've heard a running joke before amongst lefty types about "The mythical one legged black lesbian". Add trans onto that, if you want. Basically the joke is about who 'we SJWs' would have to always defer to as the ultimate oppressed victim with no privilege to check. And the punchline is that those people don't really exist, in any meaningful sense.
Because these are terms to describe and therefore examine and combat socially constructed barriers. Not a rule book about who gets to be the nice victims and who has to be the evil persecutors.

..............

Race and gender totally social constructs right? Even though actual science says otherwise.

Oh god.
OK....

There are genetic variations between groups of people with different geographical heritages (though in group variations are much larger than between groups).
'Race' is best understood as a social categorisation based upon how as a society perceive people who appear 'different' due to geographical heritage. Because the social differences we can measure about perceptions/labels/outcomes don't map on to those genetic differences in any meaningful way, this would definitely seem to imply social construct.

As with all species who reproduce sexually, humans (for the very much most part) can be categorised by their reproductive systems (and chromosomal make-up) into 'male humans' and 'female humans'. If you like, we can call this definition 'sex'.
In human communities and societies, we have assigned wider roles and expectations beyond the physical act of reproduction onto those sexes. (Other animals do this as well. Oh yeah btw not just humans have social constructs.) The one for male humans is 'men' and the one for female humans is 'women'. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, though it can be somewhat limiting because we're really funny about it. We can call this social component 'gender'. Therefore gender is a social construct tied to sex, but they are not the same thing.
Along with the reproductive systems and chromosomes, there are other group-able physical differences between the sexes, primarily based on the related hormones. Men tend to be larger. Women tend to have more subcutaneous fat. etc. I say 'tend' because these aren't quite as clear cut as the chromosomes and reproductive systems - but there is a pretty strong correlation in most instances.
There may be some differences in brain or cognitive working based on sex. However, this is difficult to study, because human brains/cognitive processes are hugely shaped by learning, and we have that whole 'gender' thing. It is not possible, from what we know at this point, to identify a 'male brain' or 'female brain' based upon a physical examination (eg. cutting them up), and behaviour variations we can group tend to be a bit fuzzy (with say 40% of women not being the 'most women' thing - obviously depends on what we're talking about).
'Gender identity' - where some people feel they are the gender associated with their sex and other people feel they are the gender not associated with their sex - seems to also be a thing. We don't really understand how this works yet.

We good on the whole social construct thing now?

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You put that in quotes like I said it, but I never did.

You basically did though and since when did you feminists say non whites can be racist?

However, the systemic racism that, for example, impacts black americans is different. Because - systemic. Not because white people are bad. Or worse than black people. Because culture.

Looks like feminism should revoke your feminist card as you clearly don't get the only form of racism there is to feminists is systematic racism. Which means only whites can be racism cause logic! Oh by the way feminists are pushing to define racism as being systematic so that way whites can't experience racism ya feminism! I mean gender equality! Because that is totally equality!

that is not and has not been what I'm saying.

But that is what you have been saying. As otherwise what you been saying is going against what white privilege means. As otherwise you agree female,black, etc privilege also exist and that is something you feminists deny all the time as something that doesn't exist. In fact you feminists make up terms like benevolent sexism to dismiss things when women are privilege as we all know women can't ever be privilege!

But if you're going for "So when they say all women are X its just like when you say all white people are Y!", you've totally missed the point.

No its you that is totally missing the point. But as I said you are never going to get it either. As you and feminists think its okay to view others as a monolith but heaven forbid one views feminism as such. Your so blinded by your own ideology there is no way for you to see past it. Much like with the language you feminists use, you can't at all see why its problematic. After all saying men are trash is totally justified by feminists and you feminists wonder why there is backlash. But hey feminists are always right and facts or reality never matters.

Because you want me to sanitise it and pretend that systemic racism isn't real.

No its because stuff like systematic racism does not exist. What does exist is pockets of racism and racism existing within selective areas and groups. Racism is no longer a universal thing like how you feminists think it is. More so its not something solely whites do either. Afterall Japan is totally not a racist country right?

To be a bit glib but maybe help get my point across: correct terminology doesn't care about your feelings.

Yes becuase made up terminology made up by feminism is the only correct terminology and the only correct way to view and talk about things right? No other way to view or talk about things. Your no different from academia here. Something I pointed out that it doesn't allow for opposing views. You can't handle a different view point on gender issues. As you think feminism is the only way to view gender issues as clearly the female point of view is the only correct way to view things. You say you listen, you clearly not when you can't even admit there can be issues with feminist ideology and you claim you want a productive discussion. You want to covert people to feminism nothing more.

We good on the whole social construct thing now?

Besides you needing to read up on biology? Yup. By the way there's numerous studies showing there is in fact brain differences in men and women at early stages of life. And that even as babies when gender norms are not impressed onto the infant, infants have been shown to be attracted to certain toys often associated with their gender I mean sex I mean gender. Yes I will agree a portion of gender is social, but you feminists think everyone's up bringing is purely due to nurture as nature never plays a part in who we are according to feminism.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You basically did though and since when did you feminists say non whites can be racist?

Didn't. Also - never heard feminists say non-white people can't be racist. In fact, people who frequently experience racism can also be super racist themselves. It's a thing.
I do see where you getting at with the "FEMINISTS DON'T SAY THAT!" in one respect:
Some people argue that when say for an african american against a white american 'isn't racism', because of the lack of systemic racism there. They'd just agree it's bad (even if they hate the other race because that other race are almost always dicks to them).
I personally... while I get their argument, I think its unhelpful to stop describing any behaviour that is essentially 'negative stereotyping based on race' as racism. So, there you go. A within-SJW disagreement!

Mainly the rest of what you're saying is "This is feminism's real intentions" or "That isn't what you meant", but as we've cleared up what I meant... OK. Bit of the whole 'no true scotsman' fallacy starting to creep in here.

Besides you needing to read up on biology?

Kind of funny because not only do I know of the original study you're referring to here about the toys (if its the best known one which I imagine it is), I have read it, and also some other research in the area. (Also that one is more psychology than biology in terms of fields but whatever, they're deeply intertwined fields, without going to much into my background and current job, covers both of those.)
There is actually some pretty interesting research that surrounds it - some that supports it and some that contradicts it, but thats really a whole other point.

Because I said it is possible that there are some sex differences in cognition or behaviour that are not based on social learning.

What I also said is that 'gender' is the socially constructed labels/roles based around sex. The distinction being that 'sex' is the word for the biology, and 'gender' is the word for the social stuff based on sex. So 'human male' could mean person with penis, could even maybe mean something about their cognition, but 'Man' is the social category we have developed around it and not actually the same thing.

It's an important distinction for exactly this reason. Otherwise people seem to think that any suggestion that 'gender' has a top down influence in people's thinking and behaviour is a "Denial of biological reality! Women have ovaries they're clearly not the same!!!".

The way that human beings are these evolved beings capable of incredible adaption and learning, and this interacts and interplays with their biology/neurology, is actually some super complicated but also absolutely fascinating stuff. We peel back layers of the onion to get to the nub of it all, and just find some even more complicated onion layers underneath. Its cool.
And why more people should actually try and... enjoy learning about this stuff, rather than only thinking it matters when its part of pubmed journal article dumps that either support or conflict with their 'position'.

(I read this study not long ago about rat pups that was really interesting. Basically, rat pups give out a scent based on their sex, and the mother rat will lick them differently depending on whether they're a male or female rat. These researchers then mimicked the rat mother licking - using a paintbrush which is a funny and cute visual image - and did it to these rat pups for the opposite sex that they were. They found that the rat pups they did this to actually then both behaved and physiologically became more like the other 'gender' of rat pup. So rat pups have a sex difference, and then their environment will depend on that sex difference, and then some of the further sex differences are products of that environmental difference. And thats in baby rats! Imagine how much more fucking complicated human versions of the same type of mechanism might be!
Anyway that neither really supports my point or is against yours - I just thought it was cool.)

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do see where you getting at with the "FEMINISTS DON'T SAY THAT!" in one respect:

This is the part us anti feminists love as we just quote you feminists and you feminists then make the best mental gymnastics ever! And yes by saying white privilege and it relating to racism is saying only whites can be racism, something loads of feminists do in fact say. its actually pretty mainstream thing in feminism.

Because I said it is possible that there are some sex differences in cognition or behaviour that are not based on social learning.

No you said there may be differences. Meaning you are sticking to feminist scripture in saying gender and that race is a social construct. As you feminists think nurture is what dictates everything. That part is clear.

Otherwise people seem to think that any suggestion that 'gender' has a top down influence in people's thinking and behaviour is a "Denial of biological reality!

Maybe there is hope for you yet! As this is what you and feminism does. Now if only you can look at differences in brain makeup and what have you may we possible start some real progress with you realizing feminism isn't always right like you clearly think it is.

Anyway that neither really supports my point or is against yours - I just thought it was cool

Don't know why you mention it. Only a handful of animals show any similar behaviors to humans. As I know elephants show human like behaviors and you can even pick up on their emotions. And current biology shows they actually have a whole psychology to them even. The same goes with various monkey's/apes. The point is humans are more complex than other animals purely due to evolution. And more so homospens at that As mind you there was other human species around but died out because of evolution.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Maybe there is hope for you yet! As this is what you and feminism does. Now if only you can look at differences in brain makeup and what have you may we possible start some real progress with you realizing feminism isn't always right like you clearly think it is.

Mate, this response to what I said....

When 'The Blue Pill' and 'The Feminists' sarcastically shout "BIOTROOFS!" to mock the TRPers and alt-right anti-feminists and what-have-you, its not because they're making fun of their silly notion that Truth means anything.
They're making fun of people for using really illogical leaps based on cherry picked scientific findings in an attempt to make ideological justifications, along with saying "You see this is why you're on the side of the ideological nonsense and I'm on the side of The Science (TM)", with no awareness of the irony. And thats funny.

If you're wondering why I started to look into the Femininazi Propaganda (to give you a picture of where I'm coming from I suppose, since you keep telling me where I'm coming from), it was this:

I was always sort of 'a femininst I guess' because I thought that some people were sexist, and sexism was bad and stuff. But really it wasn't something I thought much about. I was raised a lefty in terms of 'exploitation is bad and helping people is important', and where I grew up there was a lot of poverty and exploitation that also impacted people I loved, but feminism as such was never really a big part of that for me.
I was also into (and am still into) science.
So I went and I learned some more about science. About genetic variation, about neuroscience, about perception and cognition, about human development, about how learning and social influence (outside gender) occur, and some philosophy of science. (Also other stuff, but the above is the more relevant to the conversation.)
Thats the kind of academia I came from - no one even mentioned gender studies or postmodernism, that all came a lot later for me.

After learning all this, I looked at it all together, and at the world, and there seemed to be a problem. Because my prior ideas about how 'men and women' were a thing and how they worked, which were just the standard everyday assumptions everyone makes... didn't match up with what I'd found out. The simplistic way I'd originally considered 'nature vs. nurture' was obviously misleading. And considering what I knew about how biases/perception/the formation of concepts worked, I knew it was silly to just think that was because I or everyone was just bad and dumb. That there must be reasons.

So I looked at some ways to try and understand how this happens, how humans as individual biological brains and processes fit into and interact with the wider picture. Including feminist theory. And feminist theory seemed... a really good tool for looking critically at what I'd believed and people believe and making it fit into 'The Science' better. Especially if I wanted to use it to actually help people. They seemed to fit together really well. Still seem to.

This is all just sort of a hobby for me now, though. I'm still involved in science, but my working days are more about trying to figure out if 14 year olds have understood what alpha decay is than all this kind of thing. But that also has the benefit of keeping me very much 'in the real world' (rather than swanning around in the theoretical versions of poverty/class/race/etc. like you keep implying).

........

Now, don't get me wrong - I know it sounds like I'm saying that "through feminism, I have become enlightened and transcended social influence and privilege", but I'm honestly not. I get that I'm still just a monkey playing around in the dirt. If I have biases and thinking flaws (like everyone), they're going to apply to all this as well.
I'm not some very smart or special person who is above you. I just... like science. And helping people. And talking about things. So here I am.

But then y'all are lecturing me about how the other 'SJWs' and I have brainwashed each other into denying the obvious reality of the mens and the womens, while not even paying lip-service to how you are also just monkeys playing around in the dirt. Zero awareness that the status quo maybe isn't just... everything. And it seems absurd.
THAT is why I 'treat the anti-feminists as a monolith' - show me that you guys are actually thinking about shit rather than just reacting with derision at anything that seems weird to you, and then I can talk. I'm trying not to just assume that is what you're doing, but it certainly fucking looks like it.
Plus when you (the general anti-feminist 'you') try and do it with poorly interpreted explanations of data it gets me.... science teacher triggered.

Yeah yeah yeah "Reacting with derision to anything that seems to not fit - thats exactly what the feminists do!". Ok. You clearly think that. Maybe if its a really bad thing the bad people do, don't... do it as well, then?

............

Another essay but we're the only ones reading this, so whatevs.

(Also - its always funny with the "I'm not talking about things from the environment, I'm talking about the make-up of the physical brain". The brain changes due to the environment. We call it 'learning' and 'memory'. There is no secret other thing that is happening. All just the ol' physical brain. So when you suggest that something could be influenced by social learning and someone says "But there is a difference in THE BRAIN!" it sounds like they're saying the brain is the source of the innate drives and learning occurs.... by magic?)

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When 'The Blue Pill' and 'The Feminists' sarcastically shout "BIOTROOFS!" to mock the TRPers and alt-right anti-feminists and what-have-you, its not because they're making fun of their silly notion that Truth means anything.

And yet I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about how feminists like you say gender and race are social constructs and women and men are totally the same. No differences at all. Afterall everyone is equal and men and women are totally not born differently.

And feminist theory seemed... a really good tool for looking critically at what I'd believed and people believe and making it fit into 'The Science' better.

So what you are saying is you found religion and its name is feminism. If you actually read up on the data and such you would never come to the conclusion that feminism is a really good tool for looking at things critically. As right off the bat you should have realized the female point of view is a red flag. As right there you would have realize it doesn't have an objective but bias view. But you didn't likely because you agreed with how it views things.

As I mention to you in my other reply notice how you didn't at all reply to my reply on academia? And how feminist academia does not like opposing views? And how bias feminist academia is? Yes you admit its not perfect but not even you have conceeded to looking at opposing views even after you saying you listen.

The brain changes due to the environment

I know that. You clearly ignore the part where I specifically mention infants. You know small little babies that have not been effected by the environment basically at all? I wasn't talking about teenagers or that 20 somethings, but infants.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

social constructs

They are. We just went through this.

Afterall everyone is equal and men and women are totally not born differently

Again, stating the need to consider social gender and biological sex as different isn't a denial of biological sex.
You misunderstood. Thats absolutely fine, it's not a super obvious distinction. Sometimes 'the feminists' (not a monolith) don't understand as well. But don't... just keep saying the thing that is wrong as if it was right.

If you actually read up on the data and such you would never come to the conclusion that feminism is a really good tool for looking at things critically.

I've been trying to get it across without being snotty and dismissive, but - I have a degree in 'the data and such' and I'm also a science teacher, whose job it is to formatively assess whether people have misunderstood scientific concepts. The latter skillset is at the moment leading me to think you don't also have the former.

tool for looking at things critically

'Critical'. Has. Contextual. Meaning.

but not even you have conceded to looking at opposing views even after you saying you listen

What opposing views? "I oppose! You're wrong!" isn't an opposing view. Got the first bit down, but gonna need the view bit.
I have lots of viewpoints. Some are 'feminist'. Some are not. Don't know if I 'throw them out because they don't confirm to my religion!' yet unless you tell me which of them you're talking about.

As right off the bat you should have realized the female point of view is a red flag. As right there you would have realize it doesn't have an objective but bias view.

I don't know if you meant 'feminist' here instead of 'female', though you then said similar with 'feminist' underneath. So I'll go with 'female'.
The female point of view is biased. The male point of view is biased. The human point of view is biased.

And how feminist academia does not like opposing views?

Humanities academia is essentially just people putting forward opposing viewpoints to the other person.
If you mean 'feminist thinkers within the humanities' and the 'opposing view' is that "Feminism is shit". Well yes. I mean, other academics in the humanities absolutely don't agree with the viewpoint of feminist theory. But they don't tend to be 'feminist thinkers'. By definition.

Its just "Are feminists/feminist academics always open minded to opposing points of view"? No! Sometimes not! Sometimes they should be more!
But you're not asking that. You're trying to have 'feminists are biased' as like... a fucking knockdown argument, and doesn't apply to yourself. Again and again. As if people aren't biased. People are, and it isn't one.

People don't like opposing views. Especially regarding "deeply entrenched beliefs". Like the ones you hold about men and women!
(Loooops back up to the 'Critical Theory' stuff before)

You clearly ignore the part where I specifically mention infants.

You clearly ignored the part where I said "Yeah I've read a lot of them".

It's hard to tell what you mean by 'infants'. You say not teenagers or 20 somethings, which... yeah, assumed you didn't anyway. Toddlers? Babies? Five year olds? Newborns? (With newborns it tends to be gaze related studies, because they're not very good at physically selecting objects, so can't really 'choose toys'). All referred to both in and outside of research as 'infants'. Because since we're talking about child development... that is a pretty damn important distinction. And loads of research has been done in this area, so how am I to know which of 'the data' you're referring to?

Do you mean the ones where gaze at pictures was tracked? Forced to make a selection or free play? How were the definitions of toys and play defined? (So if a boy picks up a toy cooking utensil, but then uses it to sword fight a plastic T-Rex, has he really chosen a 'female specific toy'?) What colour were the toys? Were the parents present? Was the researcher present and/or was the study double blind? Etc.

Because if you have actually read them, as you tend to have done if you've actually studied brain development and not just googled it, you'd know that 'THE DATA' varies a lot based on these things.

You know small little babies that have not been effected by the environment basically at all?

How small? Because 1 or 2 year olds have been effected by the environment a great deal. Your 'basically at all' might refer to babies still in the womb, though they can still learn things - pretty hard to measure their toy preferences at a pre-natal point, though.
The adaptability and learning capacity of very young human beings is actually incredible, when again you'd know if you wanted to find out about reality rather than just shit on people with different viewpoints.

And of course, the great irony of all this is I agree that much of the research seems to suggest there may well be some differences in girl and boy cognition not based on social learning.
I'm still pretty sceptical, because I know how we sometimes... look to show things that confirm our pre-conceptions ('boys and girls are different', I mean look at how we dress/refer to them as if they are, so we must think that), and ignore the complexities there. Some of even the newborn gaze studies have been shown to be impacted by social response being ignored in terms of research methodology. But really, doesn't matter all that much.

You decided to not even talk about that, but about how I (and feminist) am wrong to question whether social gender essentialism can and does have a negative impact, "because children pick out different toys". Your evidence in no way disproves my conclusion. And not just in a "well not technically" way. Actually. As in it's very possible, even LIKELY, that there are some early cognitive differences that we then decide to snowball into massive and eventually destructive social limitations and judgements.

You made it really easy for me to just dismiss your points. I've tried to... charitably consider the points I think you were trying to get at. But just fyi for when you're talking to other people.

TLDR; Science is fun. Watching it used as an ideological weapon to dismiss all criticism of the status quo, with barely an attempt to understand it, is painful.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They are. We just went through this.

Just because you believe that doesn't make it so. Especially when there's nothing to actually support it being a social construct.

I'm also a science teacher, whose job it is to formatively assess whether people have misunderstood scientific concepts. The latter skillset is at the moment leading me to think you don't also have the former.

If this was remotely true your doing a horrible job at it in regards to our conversation here. Ya I am no scientist, but that doesn't mean I can't read studies and such. This is besides you done nothing to prove me wrong on well anything. All you have done is spew feminist talking points as if they are gossible. All while doing exactly what I pointed out what sociologists/feminists do in that not hearing out opposing views. As I pointed out you want others to listen and to lecture. You don't want to listen and hear opposing views as you clearly think your view is the correct one no matter what. This is why it impossible to have an actual discussion with feminists, you refuse to hear others with different views on the topic out.

What opposing views?

How about gender not being a social construct for starters? I know you won't read the link but I gave you one anyway. Not like I can't find more links on this or anything. More so if gender was a social construct, then explain trans people and why they feel they are born the wrong gender and that sex? Clearly trans people feel sex and gender is one in the same. As why else would they transition?

But you're not asking that.

Why should I ask something that I proved to be true? I linked you articles proving not only is feminist academia to be biased but not open to opposing views. Its very much an echo chamber. And your doing the same here. Mind you I never ask you to like opposing views but to hear out opposing views something you clearly not done all because you don't like them. I guess if they don't fit the narrative you must dismiss them! No need to inform yourself or anything right? This is why its easy to win against feminists, as all one needs to do is link stuff and watch you play mental gymnastics to twist things around. Serious take any topic you want and I find links proving the feminist view and talking points to be wrong. And you no doubt say I am wrong even when I link you stuff.

Because 1 or 2 year olds have been effected by the environment a great deal.

No they haven't actually. They are more dictated by their nature at this stage than nurture. As they are still learning their environment and that surroundings. And in regards to your fetus thing, its not totally known outright if fetus can actually learn things or not while in the womb. Yes theres a link shown but its not been proven outright either.

And of course, the great irony of all this is I agree that much of the research seems to suggest there may well be some differences in girl and boy cognition not based on social learning.

If science proves there is outright differences in the brain from birth between girls and boys how is there not cognitive differences? More so we know for a fact boys and girls generally learn differently. And we know boys do worse when they are taught by methods best used for girls while girls do okay when taught by methods best suited for boys. This is a well established fact.

You made it really easy for me to just dismiss your points. I've tried to... charitably consider the points I think you were trying to get at. But just fyi for when you're talking to other people.

Now this is what one calls bullshit. You ignoring my points from the get go and done nothing but spew feminist talking points. As I keep pointing out you never wanted to listen but lecture. You made that clear.

Watching it used as an ideological weapon to dismiss all criticism of the status quo, with barely an attempt to understand it, is painful.

And its even more painful to watch someone who claims to be a scientist to ignore what it actually says. But hey I am the one who is totally worng all because you say so all without any facts or anything. Afterall feminists know everything and we all know feminists are never ever wrong! And you wonder why you can't have discussions with anti feminists. This is even after I pointed out reasons why. Clearly that didn't sink in and you ignored that.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A story example about child development and gender, to illustrate my point:

So let's say there is a little boy, Jason, and he is three years old. (Could be two, could be one, for the example to still work.) Jason's mother, Anne, is generally pretty chill about gender roles - she thinks kids should be allowed to play with whatever toys they want, whatever.

So Jason is playing with his toys or the toys at the play place with Anne present/involved. Jason picks up a toy truck to play with. Maybe Jason picks up the toy truck because he has already learned this is the toy he is 'supposed' to like, maybe because he has innate drive towards things that are trucks because boy brain, maybe because he is just randomly picking up objects to explore and this time he went for the truck (and he will also go for some things that aren't boy toys, even if less of the time). Doesn't actually matter for this example.

Anne sees this. Consciously, she doesn't think anything about anything, she is just playing with her son as she normally does. But we also know that Anne has internalised gender norms (as in, learned over the years from the world what 'men or women are like' - this isn't one of the big feminist conspiracies, I just mean... she knows what men and women are in culture). And just as Jason has evolved to conform to group norms, Anne has evolved to want her child to conform to group norms. Anne and Jason both have evolutionary mechanism that make them want to 'fit in' and encourage each other to fit in, as survival - and Anne knows subconsciously that while little boys who play with dolls are fine, they are often judged and excluded.
So Anne's behaviour is different, when he picks up the truck - not on purpose, not drastically. A slight change in her tone of voice or openness of her eyes. Slightly more engaged than she was before.
And Jason picks up on these changes in Anne, because he is evolved to be extremely perceptive to tiny cues from his parent (he can't understand what she is saying after all, so he notices tiny shifts in pitch and eye movement instead). Jason has just learned, or this experience has been a tiny part of him learning, that certain toys are better to pick up than others. Boy toys.
This happens over and over, tiny exchange of social cues, while neither Anne or Jason consciously realise it.

When Anne and Jason's Dad, or her friend, or her mother, are talking - toys come up. Anne mentions, just in passing, that Jason tends to either 'like trucks' or 'typical boy, y'know!'. Because while Anne is also glad that Jason seems to not hate dolls, and she thinks that kids who aren't normal are fine, she wants her son to be liked, and people like conformity.
So based on this, Jason's dad/gran/whoever... gets him a toy truck, when it's his birthday. Everyone gets him trucks, or similar 'boy toys', because "this is just what Jason likes". So now Jason has mainly trucks, and plays with mainly trucks (both because thats what he has and likes - maybe has some innate preference for - and is used to, but also because of above mentioned social cue learning). And Jason gets referred to as 'a typical little lad', and people treat him accordingly - more rough and tumble, more this, more that. All this goes on to over the years contribute massively to others' perception of Jason and Jason's perception of himself.

And you know what - this isn't a terrible thing, where we should all panic and throw away Jason's trucks. It's also not 'better', for reasons I'll go into in a second.
Jason probably enjoys playing with the trucks, whether he would also enjoy some other toys he doesn't play with as much isn't the end of the world - he is a happy little kid and his family love and care about him. Fine.

....

This happens constantly, every day. We know this from all we know about how people behave based on subconscious beliefs and cues. And it's mainly just... fine, whatever. BUT if we start to think it's somehow 'more natural' (it might be 'natural' to want to fit in, but society has a top down influence, on what to fit in to, and what is 'natural' anyway, surely either everything we do is natural or basically nothing is), we can run into problems.
Because if we deny that the process above happens, let the wider group of parents stand around saying "Jason and the other little boys only choose to always play with the trucks because its 'the way they are', nothing to do with us or social influence"... what happens when kids do seem to like the things that aren't 'for them'? For whatever reason. You're going to start assuming there is something wrong with that kid - there isn't, maybe they picked up on different cues, maybe they're 'innately into something else' and haven't been trained out of it yet.
And maybe people won't ever get Jason a doll, or a painting set, to play with - because 'he likes boy things'. But we know that a range of types of play leads to the best development of kids, even if they tend to select some more often than others.

We're not giving Jason the best chance at being a rounded happy person anymore - not just because he has some influence from gender expectations, thats unavoidable, but because its not as good if those expectations go unchecked.

THIS is what I mean about the 'its fucking complicated, even if there are some innate gender preferences' thing. Why I'm not just being facetious about 'BUT EVEN NEWBORNS LEARN!!' because I can't accept my 'religion' might be wrong.

It's because it might be easier for us to accept "We're innately evolved to like what we like, and thats that" than "We're innately evolved to be a whole mess of biases and also I judge my kid for the toys they play with" - but we shouldn't do that if it could be harmful. It's not the end of the world, but... it's a thing.

....

I'm biased, you're biased, we're all biased - whatever. But when people say "You're biased against accepting the truth that little Jason just likes trucks and it's nothing to do with gender norms, because you don't care about evidence!"... gonna call that one out as bullshit.

And EVEN IF there is a sort of... spectrum in the beliefs of feminists, with some very much not inclined to believe there could be any innate difference, and I don't agree with them... its still a hell of a lot more correct than the notion that 'nowadays we're starting to put too much down to nurture when its actually nature, this nonsense worrying about women in STEM is just a denial of how the sexes are different'. As far as I can see. At least with the first one I have to admit that I don't know where/if the line is, so they could theoretically be correct... the last one seems frankly absurd.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A story example about child development and gender, to illustrate my point:

Its like you aren't even aware they have done numerous studies on what toys babies/infants are attracted to and how each gender often not is drawn to certain toys. Its like as if how babies react to their environment plays a part in how we raise them and more so set forward gender expectations.

THIS is what I mean about the 'its fucking complicated

You say this but yet you make it black and white. A you like all other feminists think we are solely dictated by nurture and not nature as well. I on the other hand think we are dictated by both. As unlike you and feminism I actually think both have an impact on who we are and how we act. Its not like there's not loads of studies on this or anything but who cares about that right?

But when people say "You're biased against accepting the truth that little Jason just likes trucks and it's nothing to do with gender norms, because you don't care about evidence!"... gonna call that one out as bullshit.

You can say its bullshit all you want and you be wrong. As I've told you numerous times there are studies looking at early childhood development all of which proves your claims to be wrong. More so if you actually read what I said I never said gender norms never played a role. I in fact have, but just not such an early stage of life. They more come into play when the kid is going to school. But hey you totally listening right? Oh wait we already established you aren't listening and par the course ignoing opposing views.

this nonsense worrying about women in STEM is just a denial of how the sexes are different'

Because they are different. Does that difference means women can't do STEM? No. In fact if you actually look at the facts, you know those studies you keep on ignoring, there's an argument that women may be better at STEM than men. As girls early on in general do better at math than boys. But come high school it switches around as that is generally when girls get told STEM is for boys. That is changing. What isn't changing is trying to get more boys and that men into female dominate careers. But clearly feminsits don't think the lack of men in teaching or in the medical field is well an issue. Let alone the lack of men in college is an issue. As clearly men are privilege and women aren't and men have power and women don't according to you feminists. But hey who cares anout reality and facts right?

[–]cateml2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But clearly feminsits don't think the lack of men in teaching or in the medical field is well an issue.

They do. I was just posting on PPD the other day about how the massively increasing number of men in primary (age 4-11) teaching surprised me and is great.
This is what happens when you break down gender norms that 'young kids are women's work', and point out that considering a role 'lesser' because women tend to do it is dumb.
College, medicine... what do we do about those things? Maybe if we balance stuff out, eg. make women aware of apprenticeship trade roles that are open to them, don't push women who are academically capable and scientific automatically into 'helping' roles like medicine, it would balance out.

Can't really make boys go to college. Maybe if anyone cared enough about boys to educate them, try to raise their confidence in their intellectual ability by showing them that they can learn, differentiation strategies to make learning accessible to all, support them with college applications... oh wait I already do those things.

A you like all other feminists think we are solely dictated by nurture and not nature as well. I on the other hand think we are dictated by both. As unlike you and feminism I actually think both have an impact on who we are and how we act.

We (and the majority of the evil feminists) clearly agree on 'it could well be both' - as I said at least three times, but you're still telling me I disagree with. The actual disagreement we seem to have is about how much influence gender norms exert, and whether we as a society massively over estimate and assume about that, dismissing how differences are often the result of social pressures.

claims to be a scientist

I don't. I could I suppose, but it feels... kind of pretentious and cringy to do so. I've spent time being educated about science, and I teach science, but I'm not 'a scientist' really.

I in fact have, but just not such an early stage of life. They more come into play when the kid is going to school.

So when they're capable of responding to social cues? 7 months? 9 months? Adorable 3-7 week old rhesus monkeys?

Actually I was just thinking about something you might like:
Have you seen the Contrapoints video on Jordan Peterson?

Not directly about what we're talking about (nothing to do with gender learning etc.), but touches on quite a few of the things we touched on earlier.
She used to be a humanities academic, and is critical but accepting of them, says some things you might like about that. PLUS she is one of the most popular, probably THE most popular essayists/voices in the current 'Feminist SJW' circles.
I know people who like Jordan Peterson and think 'the feminist discourse is mainly noxious' blah blah, disagree with her, but enjoyed the video because she is really fucking funny and doesn't take herself too seriously.

Its just interesting how 'feminist purity gatekeeping' is indeed a problem sometimes - but the voice who rises to the top and gets the most feminist discourse fawning, is... actually someone who does indeed call out 'the feminisms' when it needs doing. Maybe we're not all/mainly what you think?
Worth having a look to find out anyway - and as I said, its hilarious.

(The 'Incels' one is great as well - worth mentioning considering where we are.)

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They do.

Prove it then. Show me feminists actually think the lack of men in the medical field is an issue. And no this sub doesn't count as its not a feminist sub.

This is what happens when you break down gender norms that 'young kids are women's work', and point out that considering a role 'lesser' because women tend to do it is dumb.

Thing is you need to break down men's gender roles and feminists are sure not doing that. The only reason I can think of there is because feminists and that women benefit from men's gender roles. But hey female privilege doesn't exist right? Only benevolent sexism as clearly when ever a woman is benefiting it can only be due to sexism!

Maybe if anyone cared enough about boys to educate them, try to raise their confidence in their intellectual ability by showing them that they can learn, differentiation strategies to make learning accessible to all, support them with college applications... oh wait I already do those things.

Ya calling bullshit. Especially when there are studies showing you female teachers grade girls more favorably than boys. Afterall can't get into college with poor grades. Lets not also forget women have more scholarships for them than men. And that colleges are all about getting those women into college after all women totally been denied a college education, oh wait they never have been. Women been attending colleges like Oxford for eons.

We (and the majority of the evil feminists) clearly agree on 'it could well be both' - as I said at least three times, but you're still telling me I disagree with.

You are saying it could be both. I am saying it is both. What part don't you get here? We clearly do not agree here. You clearly think its nurture while I clearly think its nature and nurture.

So when they're capable of responding to social cues? 7 months? 9 months? Adorable 3-7 week old rhesus monkeys?

All of which can easily be explained by biology in that we have innate social clues built into us due to evolution. As how do you explain a baby knowing how to cry for food when clearly mothers don't teach them that? And babies learning it works?

Have you seen the Contrapoints video on Jordan Peterson?

No but I've skimmed some of her other video's and like you and other feminists she makes the same mistakes as you and other feminists. Meaning she only takes the female point of view. Ignores data that does not' conform to feminists views/narratives. And uses feminist talking points. I will give her that she is more articulate in her argument but that is the only positive thing I really have to say about her. And I certainly love to go head to head with her. Yes I am pretty confident I can knock down her arguments. Afterall I do love using feminism to fight feminism. You feminists have such a hard time when your own religion is used against you.

On a side note when I first saw Jordan I thought he be the one to really destroy feminist talking points, but sadly he turn out to be a nut job. So I ignore anything regarding him now.

actually someone who does indeed call out 'the feminisms'

In my experience feminists do not call out other feminists. All feminists do is pull out the No True Scotsman card when confronted with feminists that don't fit the narrative. Prime example TERFs. Bring them up in say /r/AskFeminists and they say they aren't real feminists. But clearly all MRA's are the same as MRA's are a monolith but clearly feminism is not. I am bring that up again because I never actually see feminists call others out let alone see feminists actually call out shitty behavior. In fact all I see is feminists supporting and that encouraging shitty behavior. Mind you I intentionally linking that because feminists love promoting Menslib claiming they are all about men's issues. And here's a prime example not only do they don't but they clearly are all about pushing the feminist narrative which is men bad women good.

[–]cateml2 points 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No but I've skimmed some of her other video's and like you and other feminists she makes the same mistakes as you and other feminists. Meaning she only takes the female point of view.

I'd advise you do more than just 'skim' looking for the ways you could 'win her' and actually engage. I just remembered the "Men" one as well, when I googled her channel to get the link for you. 1.7 million views on a video, on a channel that is feminist fan-dom central, where someone says "I like attention and also I get why sometimes feminist theory isn't adequate in terms of the male identity, also I used to live as a man and being a man is hard". Those are some pretty overwhelming numbers you're still trying to swear down mean nothing.

She literally addresses the exactly same things you keep saying its impossible for feminists to address while primarily within the feminist theoretical framework, and most importantly does what I have been trying to do - admit and address when 'feminism' doesn't have all the answers without 'WELL I'M HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FEMINAZI CULT OF ANTI-SCIENCE NONSENSE", be an ACTUAL 'rational' and work things through.
Isn't that enough for you? What would be enough for you? No one says anything you don't like? That'd be boring, wouldn't it?

And I certainly love to go head to head with her. Yes I am pretty confident I can knock down her arguments.

Thats some fighting talk, right there.
Because you haven't been... 'debating' me properly as such, and primarily just telling me I know nothing about the things I clearly know more about. I'm of the disposition to let that slide for the purpose of loving talking to people for its own sake, as you've probably ascertained.
Its not about 'slipping up' and its not about English maybe not being your first language, its about... how much of the dialogue is about engaging with reason instead of just insulting each other.
But I'm also a scientific method nerd married to an argumentative sort with a philosophy PhD, so I can epistemology and data pedant for days, but I would happily admit Contra would likely wipe the floor with me if I squared up with her.
Sometimes you gotta recognise greatness and tip the fedora, you know?

he turn out to be a nut job.

At least we agree on something.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I used to live as a man and being a man is hard"

But living as a woman is totally harder because women have it worse. I guarantee she says this. You know why? Because all feminists say women always have it worse than men. As afterall men have all the privilege which clearly makes their lives easier. As what ever issues men face are totally nothing what women face. Suicide? Women attempt it more so clearly women have it worse. Violence? Women clearly have it worse even though men are the primary victims of violence. Homeless? Women clearly have it worse even though men are the primary ones homeless. Face it you nor any other feminist are going to admit men have it worse than women in well anything. You can say I am assuming all you want, but you also won't point out where men have it worse than women either. Afterall men have privilege women do not right?

Those are some pretty overwhelming numbers you're still trying to swear down mean nothing.

Just because some video gets over a million views doesn't mean it holds any sort of value. Especially when you don't have a whole lot of video's covering all sorts of topics. She has a handful of video's covering some general overall topics.

Because you haven't been... 'debating' me properly as such, and primarily just telling me I know nothing about the things I clearly know more about.

I've told you I haven't because I knew you won't listen. As I told you numerous times. You wanted to lecture and for others to listen and not listen yourself. Plus in my experience its pointless to debate feminists. Facts don't matter only feelings when it comes to feminism.

its not about English maybe not being your first language

What does this have to do with anything? Other than you making a personal attack?

Sometimes you gotta recognise greatness and tip the fedora, you know?

And I do if the person was worthy. Contra is certainly worth having an actual debate with where I put in the actual effort to prove my points. But I am not going to admit she will wipe the floor with me as more than likely she won't. In fact I bet she concedes to a lot to what I say in fact. Yes I am being cocky but its also because if she is truly honest with what feminism is she for one shouldn't call her self a feminist and two there's so much to use against feminism to show why its crap its unreal. Like how feminists have no problems supporting women when they rape (Amy Schumer comes to mind) or when they are the aggressor of domestic violence (Amber Heard anyone?). I can go on forever and even Contra would have to concede these things if she is being honest with what feminism is.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I guarantee she says this

Link with timestamp where she says the actual opposite.

I mean, she doesn't say men have it worse either. She actually talks about the differences, the pros/cons, the complexity of the question.

Absolutely - I'm sure there were some feminists who didn't like when she said this. But... I also think that is the reason why she is so popular, amongst feminists. On 'ask feminists'. Etc. She is refreshing. She actually goes through analysing things and considering all the points of view, rather than just 'stating the feminist interpretation' - in good faith. Like, she makes fun of people who use 'checking their privilege' as an excuse to brag. And people do actually do that! Thats why its funny! Doesn't mean that the whole idea is just bragging though. Complexity.
Some feminists, mainly the TERFS, get pissy about that. But most feminists... actually care about men. Because we tend to have partners, and friends, brothers, sons, fathers, colleagues - who are living 'the male experience', and have problems, and we're fond of them. And when a dialogue comes up where someone is acknowledging complexity but also showing why you don't have to throw out the utility of feminist interpretations to acknowledge that, the majority of the feminist community goes "YES! YES I LIKE THIS ONE! MORE PLEASE!".

Because we're so used to trying to understand and talk about problems women face and why, but then getting "So you're basically telling me that we shouldn't give a shit about white men, then!?!?" in response, while we indeed actually give a shit about white men we're just talking about something else right now, and going round in circles about it. So to have someone with the ex-analytical-philosopher chops to lay it all out clearly and with self deprecating humour/pizazz, not just playing defence - thats why a good 90% of the feminists seem to have gone through a Contra-stan phase.

Just because some video gets over a million views doesn't mean it holds any sort of value.

No, but it shows that it is popular. Thats why I mentioned it.

Plus in my experience its pointless to debate feminists. Facts don't matter only feelings when it comes to feminism.

I've been told that its pointless to discuss/debate these things with 'anti-feminists'. That they just want to 'derail' - which I think is true a lot of the time - and that when you poke the bear they get angry and they might go out and hurt women, so its best to just nod and smile in the face of incorrect information. And I do worry about that latter point sometimes. But... thats not my nature. So I do it anyway. Because I've come across people who have legitimate concerns around some of the talking points, and I think its important to discuss these if we want to help people and make the world better. So, even if it's just probably pointless, I'ma take one for the team.

What does this have to do with anything? Other than you making a personal attack?

I... wanted to mention it politely because I didn't want you to think I was having a go, actually. Its in no way an attack - you speak English better than I speak any other language, I just picked up on things that suggested you had English as an Additional Language. Absolutely nothing wrong with that - I pick up on it because some of my best friends are EAL. Your English is really good.
I was trying to find a round about way of saying... sometimes that makes things harder to discuss, but to stress that when I'm raising problems with you not being clear, its nothing to do with your English.

or when they are the aggressor of domestic violence (Amber Heard anyone?)

Ok, this one I'm not going to let slide.
I'm sure there are feminists who hand-waved Rudd's behaviour, because they'd rather view female perpetrated abuse as nothing - and that is bad, they shouldn't.
But people keep raising this as if there was some at all popular, uncriticised (within feminism), "Lets all just keep supporting Amber Heard!" movement. Which is entirely bullshit. The vast majority of feminists were disgusted upon hearing about her behaviour - maybe she was the evil one and him the innocent victim, maybe it was more complicated than that I wasn't there, whatever. But she was clearly the/also the perpetrator of abuse in that relationship.
I was in a sort of 'pretend we're in a bar together' group video chat the other day (god, quarantine is miserable), and this came up. A man - who was genuinely just unaware of the later information that came out about the case - mentioned Johnny Depp as abuser. A self identified feminist who wasn't me corrected him by updating him about the new information about Heard's part.
These is the kind of conversation the normal people feminists you keep insisting don't really exist are having. Every day.

Debate how the Duluth model is problematic, or something. Say you don't think feminist discourse talks about male victims enough. Go the fuck ahead. But stop just on and on telling me 'what feminists think/do' as in 'feminists have no problem with a woman being an emotionally and physically abusive piece of shit' plus 'or they're not real feminists' (no true scotsman fallacy). As if you have a god's eye view on the whole of the universe. Its... weird.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Link with timestamp where she says the actual opposite.

Not totally. She also speaks for herself liking all the female privilege and not at all speak to gender issues. On this note read up on Norah Vincent and what she did for her book Self Made Man. She actually lived as a man for like a week. She did basically everything men do, it being dating, socializing, etc. There's even various video's on it. Least to say it not only shocked her but she also seem to had some mental issues stemming from it because men's world is so different from women's.

She actually goes through analysing things and considering all the points of view, rather than just 'stating the feminist interpretation'.

She more actually frames things differently which I been telling you that feminists should be doing. Part of why I be up to actually debating her. She doesn't use the normal feminist framework or talking points.

But most feminists... actually care about men.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/g7en0m/can_we_talk_about_menaretrash_for_a_minute_how_to/

We rarely tell positive stories about men and it’s time we stopped being part of a culture that vilifies them

Feminists care about men alright yet they are the ones creating the toxic culture towards men and justifying it. Do not see why I call bullshit here? Actions and that words to an extent show otherwise. I mean its pretty hard to believe feminists care about men when they do nothing but bash them. I mean I even linked you and article where one even admits to it. And there's stuff like Amber Heard.

No, but it shows that you're popular. Thats why I mentioned it.

More say well known that it necessarily means your well known. I mean Trump gets a lot of attention but would you call him popular? General polls show most people don't like him but republicans overall love him. See the point I am getting at?

I just picked up on things that suggested you had English as an Additional Language

Its actually my first language, grammar was never my strong suit. I also speak better than I write.

The vast majority of feminists were disgusted upon hearing about her behaviour

If that was the case then where are these feminists? As I saw far more feminists still siding with her on reddit at least than anything else when it came out. I mean if the vast majority of feminists where disgusted where was the outrage? Where was them canceling her career? I brought up Amber Heard because its one of many examples of a woman doing something shitty and feminists seemingly still support her after the fact. Ya I get it women aren't always believed but neither are men and men are far less believed than women are. Before you say no there's actually studies showing this.

A self identified feminist who wasn't me corrected him by updating him about the new information about Heard's part.

How does he not know when it made mainstream news?

But stop just on and on telling me 'what feminists think/do' as if you have a god's eye view on the whole of the universe. Its... weird.

I can only go by what I see. Which is primarily reddit as Twitter is the new Tumblr when it comes to feminism at this point. Not a whole lot of feminist video's to be had, which even feminists in /r/AskFeminists even have said and is the main reason why Contrapoints gets so many views. There was another feminist channel but she open a dialog with MRA's and low and behold feminists made all sorts of threats against her and I believe she shut down her channel. And there's not exactly a lot of feminists media sites a lot of them have shut down over funding. You keep telling me I am wrong and yet you provide nothing to really prove me wrong when it comes to feminists views.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not totally. She also speaks for herself liking all the female privilege and not at all speak to gender issues. On this note read up on Norah Vincent and what she did for her book Self Made Man. She actually lived as a man for like a week. She did basically everything men do, it being dating, socializing, etc. There's even various video's on it. Least to say it not only shocked her but she also seem to had some mental issues stemming from it because men's world is so different from women's.

She did, though. She talked about how 'being feared' as an inverse to feeling fear of others also has a negative impact we should discuss. How is that "not at all speaking to gender issues"?

It just seems... like how you brought up the Norah Vincent thing (aware of that btw). Like you're using that as an argument against women facing the problems feminists say they face? But its both one individual case of a quite unusual experience (one week as 'living as' the gender you're not used to being and don't feel you are).
Its interesting, for sure, maybe some food for thought there. But it's not "Proof that the feminists have been wrong all along".

Feminists care about men alright yet they are the ones creating the toxic culture towards men and justifying it. Do not see why I call bullshit here?

I can see what you're saying as a wider point here... I think? I really don't think 'feminists' are the ones responsible for 'creating the toxic culture' that impacts men in this way. For example... you could argue that the lack of mental health support for men is not spoken about enough and feminists are always talking about women's issues instead. But the culture that created that in the first place was just the plain ol' 'gender roles' shit the feminists don't like either, so... bit much to blame them for that?

Along with this, you linked to a men's issues subreddit famous for its 'working with the feminists' angle - mainly discussing how twitter hashtags make for shit political activism (I agree with that).
And you linked to a positive article, by a feminist, calling for more positive narratives about men. In a mainstream newspaper famed for its feminist - including radical feminist - ethos. In 2018.

If you're saying 'This stuff if good, we should keep doing this stuff' - fine. I agree. But surely those are also evidence that we... are already doing that stuff? Right there is evidence of a self identified feminist, criticising elements of the feminist discourse while still calling herself a feminist, and celebrating men - happily published in a massive national/international lefty news source.

And the stuff you said about Contrapoints being someone you like more than 'the most feminists' - thats kind of why I raised her as being someone who has been massively popular amongst feminists who also talk about 'patriarchy'. Which has been the case for the last 3-4 years or so.

low and behold feminists made all sorts of threats against her and I believe she shut down her channel

No one shut down her channel because of that. There was a thing a few months ago where she had a trans-man who was famous for being negative about non-binary people on, just to read out some unrelated text, and she did indeed get brigaded (as did her friends) by some people on twitter for it.
Meanwhile... most feminists 'took her side', or took issue with what she had done but still highlighted the issues with 'cancelling' and brigading. Almost universally agreeing that what the brigaders were doing a bad thing.
Same with the 'debating the MRAs' bit - some people did indeed say she was wrong to do that, that she was giving bad faith actors legitimacy, etc. But most feminists, including the ones who felt that way and said so.... still liked her? And still linked people to her videos on ask feminists?
It must be shit to have people saying horrible stuff to you and your friends because they disagree with you. Just calling them a 'noisy minority most people think are wrong' isn't going to make it not a problem for the receiver. BUUUT... well that is still what they are - an obnoxious loud minority.

This is kind of what I've been trying to say all along, maybe we're getting clearer on each other's viewpoints now.
You've seemed to be implying that 'feminists can't handle criticism' and this is the central problem, and why people 'should be' anti-feminist. But right here we've got massive high profile examples of... mainstream feminists having sensible discussion and handling criticism?

Maybe this right here is the exact discourse we've been looking for to solve the 'but I can't talk to feminists because we disagree with each other' problem? Evidence that... you can? So maybe being 'anti-feminist' isn't the answer, being critical of feminist ideas while in dialogue with feminists is a better answer - even if you still fundamentally disagree with where they're coming from?

How does he not know when it made mainstream news?

Was it? I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not here.
Developments in news about whether an actress most people haven't heard of is abusive don't normally get on the CNN/BBC nightly headlines, you know? I wouldn't read too much into that.

I found out about it - ironically enough - via a feminist news platform (and it definitely wasn't part of a 'This is bullshit, we must support Amber!' article). And of course it gets discussed a lot on reddit, but not everyone uses reddit much.

I think my friend just missed the memo because he was busy or whatever.

Where was them canceling her career?

Mate - I wouldn't worry about Amber Heard's rise to showbiz power. There is nothing to 'cancel'.

Johnny Depp is a household name, who has starred in some of the highest megabux franchises and critically acclaimed movie classics.
Amber Heard had a bit part as the girlfriend in a forgettable Seth Rogen comedy, and now she is known as "That ex of Johnny Depp's who got beat up by him but then it turned out she was abusive".

Her name is social and commercial mud. She ain't getting cast in shit even again, apart from maybe some nothingness no one will ever watch. "Boycotting" her isn't going to be too difficult. I think that is why 'The Feminists' aren't losing sleep over whether she needs the CANCELLED stamp.

Its like how I refuse to watch Woody Allen movies, and people start getting into it about how we shouldn't automatically boycott people based on allegations because Mia Farrow is manipulative and his wife was never really his step-daughter and blah blah blah. And I'm like "I'm going to have to stop you there - I refuse to watch the Woody Allen movie with you primarily because I hate Woody Allen movies. He could be an angel sent from heaven as a person, I still think his work is over-rated unfunny pretentious shite."
I might indeed decide not to watch a movie that celebrated Amber Heard, but since she probably isn't going to get cast in anything I'd ever watch, I'll cross that bridge if it becomes a thing.

Its actually my first language, grammar was never my strong suit. I also speak better than I write.

Ah, OK. My mistake and apologies.
Also... same. I've improved over the years, but not my strong suit either.
Part of the reason I got into science, in terms of education - I do really like it, yeah. But also I wanted to avoid having to write English or History essays ever again.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How is that "not at all speaking to gender issues"?

Again she is in a unique position of being trans. Which you yourself admitted doesn't give a real perspective on things. As she is experiencing what its like to be a woman in the past 3 years (she transition in 2017). She never grew up being a woman or that lived as a woman for any length of time. Most of her life has been living as a guy. Factor in her bias, well she's not exactly talking about gender issues least in my opinion.

Like you're using that as an argument against women facing the problems feminists say they face?

I brought her up more as a way to show feminists have no freaking clue to what they are talking about. As feminists despite all they claim have no clue what it is like being a man. While they claim being a man is the default in society and we all hear about the male experience this is one such example feminists don't know shit to what's its actually like to be a guy. Again feminists like yourself love to tell others to listen especially anti feminists who are generally men and lecture us. But do you listen? No. And you wonder why you can't have productive conversations. Maybe just maybe if feminists actually stop and listen to men just maybe they realize just how wrong they are about things. Na feminists rather think they are correct no matter what. Who cares about facts right? After all the future is female right?

I really don't think 'feminists' are the ones responsible for 'creating the toxic culture' that impacts men in this way.

Then you should really read up on feminist history. They been pretty anti male for some time. It really has nothing to do with gender roles, why you think gender roles created toxicity towards men is beyond me. Feminists are the ones that created the toxicity towards men. The only reason you blame gender roles really is to create a boogieman.

Along with this, you linked to a men's issues subreddit famous for its 'working with the feminists' angle - mainly discussing how twitter hashtags make for shit political activism (I agree with that).

I like how you ignore them outright saying men are trash is not only acceptable but should be promoted. They also didn't say such a thing make for shit activism.

And you linked to a positive article, by a feminist, calling for more positive narratives about men. In a mainstream newspaper famed for its feminist - including radical feminist - ethos. In 2018.

Makes my point doesn't it? That here's a feminist admitting to feminists creating toxicity towards men. She's not the first one and I bet you she's gotten threats from feminists over it. Feminists do not like feminists talking positively about men. Its why Menslib is a sub that is more about men sinning for being men than actually helping men. Being positive about men isn't allowed within feminism.

No one shut down her channel because of that.

I am saying she did. I see if I can't find the name of her channel. But she very much got death threats by feminists over it. You feminists do this every single time any feminist dares to go against the religion. It what happened to Cassie Jaye who was the feminist behind the crappy documentary The Red Pill. I get you want to ignore feminists making death threats as it's easy to think your side does no evil. But they very much do. Feminists love to point out all the threats and violence promoted by MRA's all the time but when it comes to feminists its clear its okay when they do it. Afterall women are oppress so they are clearly the victims and we all know its okay for victims to act as such.

She ain't getting cast in shit even again, apart from maybe some nothingness no one will ever watch.

And yet she is still casted for the second Aqua Man movie. There's been zero news or announcement made that she's been removed from the movie. So much for never being cast in shit again. You don't seem to realize she's a white woman who's legal issues never reach the heights of that like Jussie Smollett. Jussie was taken off his show because his scandal got political. Amber on the other hand isn't political and it's not like Hollywood doesn't have a history of ignoring actors past. I mean look at Woody Allen who everyone knew openly he was not only a weirdo, but a totally creep and what have you. It was also not like he didn't try to hide it either. And yet Hollywood kept on going back to him for more.

But also I wanted to avoid having to write English or History essays ever again.

I won't mind doing a history essay, I actually like history. As history is something you can't lie about as its not like one can't look it up and fact check you on it. More so there's so many interesting things to learn. Like how it was women and that white women in the southern states that push for the Confederate statues to be put up. You know all those statues that got taken down all cause they are somehow racist for existing.

[–]cateml1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is the part us anti feminists love as we just quote you feminists and you feminists then make the best mental gymnastics ever!

So to use this as an example of what I'm getting at in my last post:

You're saying I'm doing mental gymnastics to keep my position in the face of reality. Ok, gotcha.
But it certainly seems to me like we should consider how people are looked at in the 'environment' (language, images, etc.) - and how this makes them see themselves and others - as maybe related to why and how they're being racist. Because even if its just in-group/out-group assholery, gotta understand the perceptions various people/groups are using for that, or you can't change those.
Not seeing much evidence that just calling people assholes and then ignoring what they think is working out all that great, so far.

You clearly disagree. But you just keep saying "Systemic racism isn't a thing and thoughts spontaneously erupt from nowhere [implied, I dunno!?!?], everyone knows that, you just hate rational white people who disagree with you".
I'm going to need you to go through the logic behind how you think about things then. I've gone through mine, and your response is just 'FUCKING TYPICAL FEMINISTS, I AM LAUGHING AT YOU!'.

If I'm going to see how my conclusion is wrong and yours is right, you're going to have to show your working too. Please don't forget units.

This isn't just... Ben Shapiro debate club where you're trying to make each other look silly as 'an argument'. I want to do reasoning. Like real grownups.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

because so much of it is from academia which is so far removed from reality its not funny

Academia is useful. Because the world is really complicated and sometimes counter-intuitive, and we need ways to take a step back and understand it.
A set of journal papers discussing at great length back and forth whether 'The Language of Privilege' is fit for purpose or counterproductive in light of changing social discourse, can seem totally ridiculous and masturbatory as a response the question "Can I pay my rent month?".
Because - yeah. It would be a fucking stupid response to you asking that question.

BUT those papers, as a tiny part of a wider picture of academia, are ways to try and understand. And arguments based on understanding can eventually be pulled back down and applied. To, say, social and economic policy. And that absolutely will have an impact on your "Can I pay my rent this month?" question.
It's like how pouring loads of funding into a study about how chiral carbon based molecules can cause light to have a spiral polarisation seems like a waste of money, when people are starving in the world. But it's that kind of detached seeming nonsense that will then help people develop better crops, or medical tech that will save your dad's life.
(And its actually an unnecessary choice because we'd have enough money to feed people and do science, if we didn't keep wasting it competing with our neighbours to own the shiniest car, but thats a whole other story...)

Academia can get lost up its own arse, and happily continue to waffle around ignoring things that actually matter to people. Plus its obviously a privilege question as well - people who work 3 jobs to support their disabled mother general aren't the ones with the time to write the papers.
But that isn't news to 'The Feminists' anymore than its news to the rest of us. In fact thats where the whole "We need to listen to the lived experience rather than just waffling about how theoretically people should feel!" comes from.

Academia can be bullshit. But just because it at a glance looks like bullshit doesn't mean it's not a good thing someone is doing it, even if you personally aren't inclined to care about it's content (which is fine). All that information and knowledge works both bottom-up and top-down.

[–]Kellkur1 point 6 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because the world is really complicated and sometimes counter-intuitive, and we need ways to take a step back and understand it.

As long as we don't allow any opposing views to also have a go let alone have their take on things right? You do realize conservative views are oppressed within sociology and that in women's studies? And that anyone can get anything published in peer reviewed journals as long as it curtails to the feminist view point, I mean ideology? I really don't think you realize just how much of a joke academia is in this area. Let alone how academia itself is becoming more of a joke primary due to its discrimination of conservative views.

Academia can be bullshit.

All of feminist academia is bullshit. None of it is remotely rooted in reality. I don't expect it to address or cover something like "Can I pay rent this month". But when it studies something like the so called wage gap and outright structures the study to confirm to their bias by doing stuff like not adjusting for various factors it is bullshit. This is besides them not allowing opposing views to be had.

[–]Jaktenba0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That isn't what intersectional means, though?

As in... based on what I've seen at least, us ol' handwringing white feminist types tend to be very concerned about the "Black men are seen as aggressive and violent as a compounding of toxic masculine and racist stereotypes" thing. While also thinking the patriarchy is a thing and black women experience sexism and racism from inside and out of their community.

Of course there are a good number of feminists who'll proudly wear their "I fight oppression!" badge but are as 'woke' about class and race as your average 70 year old Fox News loving MAGA hat. The same way that some of the most hardcore vodka swilling Marxist radicals won't see any problem with telling the women to go sit in a corner and look pretty while they plan the revolution.

Because We Live In A Society and people are awful.

There is definitely as a whole more awareness of the way that both class and gender constrain people and promote false hierarchies in both spaces, though. Because once you start to realise one set of arbitrary rules about people's 'place' is a prison... you start to look a bit questioningly at the rest as well.

[–]MinskAtLit0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kellkur-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that feminism is not a unified force of 'fuck men, and nothing else matters'.

It might as well be.

You think that someone who says "Poor disabled black gay men are never oppressed because they're men!' is going to get resounding high fives from the rest of modern feminist club?

Its cute you think feminists think intersectionality applies to men as well.

Have you had ANY contact whatsoever with the modern left?

/r/politics is all the contact one needs with the modern left or that video's on Youtube.

manosphere men throwing class oppression in the face of 'women' "ARE YOU SAYING THIS GUY'S LIFE IS GREAT?!?" as if working class women don't exist, because they completely misunderstood what 'privilege' means.

Because when feminists say men are privilege but women are not totally doesn't say working men have it so great right? Maybe feminists should instead frame things better and use better language and drop their generalization. Na that be asking too much and it will go against their narrative. Afterall men are trash and are rapists while women do no harm women like Amber Heard.

[–]Kellkur0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bntt89-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Appomattoxx0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kellkur0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zelfrax_14 points15 points16 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DKN38 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SlashCo8021 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrchoon21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]pixelatedlizardNo Pill1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrchoon2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RowBoeCop-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrchoon1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AidsVictim0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Herbivore4Life-2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M0rtAuxRoisvouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that in modernity Islam is more of a problem than Christianity, but Christianity is still a problem, and while Jesus wasn't a war promoter, he was still a stupid asshole and an apocalyptic prophet. Like, have you read the Bible? Jesus's whole shtick is, "You better love me and daddy when the apocalypse comes or you fucked as fuck dawg." This is one of the primary messages of Jesus and no amount of cherry picking or other theological semantics will make it otherwise.

Jesus does not come to send peace, but a sword. If you want to get heavy on the sword part, that means 'the word of God'. Jesus comes with the word of God, and that word is, "Love me and daddy or you're fucked as fuck dawg." This is the what the Bible says. This is in a primary Gospel, not Revelations or some shit like that. This is a major part of Christianity, included in all major sects of Christianity, and it is gay retard shit no one should care about.

tldr: Islam is whack shit and so is Christianity and all retards on all sides should stop being retards

[–]Kellkur-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]versaceatnight0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlissonHarlan1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghatchi10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loopylafae2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Part of the problem is that jobs that have been traditionally done by women pay less than traditional male jobs. This is true “regardless of the value of the work to the employer or the consumer.” The more a job is considered ‘women’s work,’ the less it pays. Traditionally male-dominated trades deter women from entering them. To participate fully in society, individuals need a level of resources that is not too far below the norm in that community. Falling markedly behind the community average means effective exclusion from the normal life of society." Statscan.."" However, for women, as indicated, several studies clearly demonstrate that the labour market is tilted against women. In other words, women are disproportionately affected by precarious employment. Professional women are more likely than their male counterparts to be in precarious work, with women accounting for 60% of all precarious professionals. In 2017, 62% of workers in involuntary part-time employment and 52% of temporary workers were women. " ourcommons. "Women experience poverty at higher rates than men. Men receive more income than women from all sources, including wages and salaries, investment, retirement, and other income. Single mothers have the most unstable earnings and are among the most impoverished people in Canada. There are several reasons why women (and children) live in poverty: Discrimination against women in gaining access to paid work and a fair income. Sex-role stereotypes about women's involvement in paid work. women account for 70% of all part-time employees and two-thirds of women are employed within traditionally women-dominated occupations. A change in family composition, such as a divorce, greatly increases a woman's chance of entering poverty. Intersectionality: Aboriginal women, racialized women, disabled women and queer women are more likely to live in poverty than white women, able-bodied women and heterosexual women. In Canada, women are at greater risk of poverty than men becauImagese of their gender. Social constructions of gender ideas about what it means to be a woman also contribute to women's poverty. Because of stereotypes about women's nature and their ability and desire to act as caregivers, women are disproportionately responsible for unpaid caregiving labour, for example looking after children or aging or ill family members. Women are frequently dependent on men for financial support, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation and to poverty if the relationship with the man breaks down."...". Low-income measures are thresholds that define households as low income if their adjusted income is less than half of the median,Note36 where "adjusted" means that the number of persons living in the household has been taken into account.Note37 While the preceding sections reported total income (before tax), this section uses low-income measures after tax to identify affected households.

Women are more vulnerable to low income than men, for a number of reasons. For one thing, women are paid less than men with the same qualifications, even when they work the same number of hours.Note38 Traditionally-femaleoccupations have lower average hourly wages than traditionally-male occupations, even when they require the same skill level.Note39 Women are also overrepresented in low-paying occupations.Note40 On the home front, women are more likely than men to care for children and elderly or disabled family members. Combining earning and caring roles is challenging, so women are more likely than men to reduce their work hours or take time out of the workforce to care for family.Note41….Since 1995, the gender gap in low income among seniors has increased to some extent, as the proportion of older women living in a low-income household increased at a faster pace (11.6 percentage points) than did the proportion of older men in living in a low-income household (9.1 percentage points).Note43 By 2015, 16.3% of elderly women were in low income, compared with 11.9% of their male counterparts (a difference of 4.4 percentage points).

By comparison, 34.5% of lone mothers and 30.3% of unattached women lived in low-income situations, as did 13.7% of lone fathers and 28.1% of unattached men. Notably, low income was more than twice as prevalent among lone mothers as it was among lone fathers (34.5% versus 13.7%, respectively).

" statscan.

[–]Bntt893 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Harriett-0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peacheslikeyou11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldmedalflower0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is such an old shit meme, incels aren't even trying now god

Old yes, but is it a shit meme?

One of the gospels of feminism is that women, all women, no matter how wealthy, no matter their lifestyle, are "oppressed victims" and that men, all men, no matter how poorly educated, poverty, physical issues, mental health issues are "privileged".

Think of all the preferential treatment given to women and girls solely because they are female - extreme bias in education, preferential treatment in admissions, hiring, promotions, government contracts, the vast majority of tax dollars spent on women's issues, the vast majority of healthcare dollars spent on women, the mainstream media with endless double standards. The list goes on and on. At every stage in life, they are given the easier path from society.

Yet, just being "female" is all it takes to receive this "oppressed" status?

[–]Peacheslikeyou2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peacheslikeyou1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldmedalflower0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Peacheslikeyou1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]basiliskgf2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shadow_Of_Chad-Lite[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnGoBuffaloBills8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Osmosis_Flows12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VixDzn17 points18 points19 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]miss_meeseeks5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peacheslikeyou8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ieatassonfirstdate0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]VixDzn2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ieatassonfirstdate1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]VixDzn0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Suck-Less3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChadThundagaCockBorderline Personality Wrangler8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnGoBuffaloBills8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Osmosis_Flows6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peacheslikeyou2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Shadow_Of_Chad-Lite[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sharonofcardup1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnxwalkerNo Pill3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]an_angry_witch0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PlanetSquare0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Shadow_Of_Chad-Lite[S] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PlanetSquare0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Harriett-0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]petrichordiumdidnt know it was a devil town0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bright_ItempasBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]darudeboysandstormHaving Instagram makes you a thot7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomcheese44-3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ghatchi-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]utrastalin-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sid_Insidious-1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link