Topic: Could someone critique this please?
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG started this discussion 15 years ago #2,801
Female privilege checklist:
As a woman …
1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.
2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.
3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.
4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.
5. I will probably live longer than the average man.
6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.
7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.
8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is.
9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.
10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s.
11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.
12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.
13. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.
14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.
15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.
16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.
18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.
20. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.
21. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.
22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.
23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man.
24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.
Source
misogynist
As a woman …
1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.
2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.
3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.
4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.
5. I will probably live longer than the average man.
6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.
7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.
8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is.
9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.
10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s.
11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.
12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.
13. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.
14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.
15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.
16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.
17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.
18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.
20. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.
21. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.
22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.
23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man.
24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.
Source
misogynist
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #51,537
I'd also like the tone of this discussion to be, "What can we do to improve the lives of men and encourage harmony between the sexes."
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #51,540
I read up to where it started being correct. It was at that point when I decided I should quit while you're ahead, and stopped at four.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 31 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #51,542
its too long
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #51,543
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #51,544
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #51,548
@51,537 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
> What can we do to improve the lives of men and encourage harmony between the sexes?
"Stop whining" is the first thing that comes to mind.
> What can we do to improve the lives of men and encourage harmony between the sexes?
"Stop whining" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #51,553
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #51,860
sage
ninamj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #51,862
sage
but i'm really bumping lol
but i'm really bumping lol
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #51,938
all but the first 3 are true
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #51,945
@previous (J)
I've gotten this response a lot. Please consider these links:
1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man. (~11k males murdered vs ~3k females murdered in 2008.)
2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man. (4:1 ratio of male to female successful suicides.)
3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man. (as of now, the reported difference is relatively small. Then again, men are more likely to be murdered)
I've gotten this response a lot. Please consider these links:
1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man. (~11k males murdered vs ~3k females murdered in 2008.)
2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man. (4:1 ratio of male to female successful suicides.)
3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man. (as of now, the reported difference is relatively small. Then again, men are more likely to be murdered)
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #51,986
Posted this on Gynarchy:
A Gynarchist's beliefs are strong enough to justify "reducing men lower than domestic animals." Hence, you will have little difficulty answering these questions. You might even earn a new convert!
According to this passage ([url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#ERADICATE[/url]), Gynarchists believe in the happiness of men. However, according to this ([url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#SUBMALES[/url]) passage, a male would have no human rights and have a lower status than domestic animals. A man's owner could also abuse the individual to her hearts content.Could you elaborate on how these two passages are congruent with one another? Also, would a slave owner be allowed to execute any man she owns, or all of them if the urge takes her without any legal retribution?
You also claim the Earth was ruled by women ([url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#CRISIS[/url]). Why are there more male inventors, writers, and leaders if that is the case? Additionally, the Amazonians were obscure, and they never reached might on par with the patriarchal Roman, Greek, or Chinese empires.
Next, children raised by single parents (the majority of whom are women) are statistically more likely to become gang members, according to a fbi.gov report ([url]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/national-gang-threat-assessment-2009-pdf[/url]). How would eliminating fatherhood, as stated here [url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#FATHERHOOD[/url], help to pacify children and reduce crime when single mothers are more likely to produce gang members?
Finally, how do we know these women rulers would be kind and fair and not malicious dictators such as Mary I of England?
I would like to thank you in advance for answering my questions in a courteous and insightful manner.
Sincerely,
Tyson
A Gynarchist's beliefs are strong enough to justify "reducing men lower than domestic animals." Hence, you will have little difficulty answering these questions. You might even earn a new convert!
According to this passage ([url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#ERADICATE[/url]), Gynarchists believe in the happiness of men. However, according to this ([url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#SUBMALES[/url]) passage, a male would have no human rights and have a lower status than domestic animals. A man's owner could also abuse the individual to her hearts content.Could you elaborate on how these two passages are congruent with one another? Also, would a slave owner be allowed to execute any man she owns, or all of them if the urge takes her without any legal retribution?
You also claim the Earth was ruled by women ([url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#CRISIS[/url]). Why are there more male inventors, writers, and leaders if that is the case? Additionally, the Amazonians were obscure, and they never reached might on par with the patriarchal Roman, Greek, or Chinese empires.
Next, children raised by single parents (the majority of whom are women) are statistically more likely to become gang members, according to a fbi.gov report ([url]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/national-gang-threat-assessment-2009-pdf[/url]). How would eliminating fatherhood, as stated here [url]http://www.gynarchy.org/faqs.htm#FATHERHOOD[/url], help to pacify children and reduce crime when single mothers are more likely to produce gang members?
Finally, how do we know these women rulers would be kind and fair and not malicious dictators such as Mary I of England?
I would like to thank you in advance for answering my questions in a courteous and insightful manner.
Sincerely,
Tyson
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #51,992
Mindwurms: Boldly Spinning In Placeâ„¢
AC !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,008
…elaboration…
You’re entirely overwrought with irritation about gender conflict.
Feminism is not defined by non-consensual sexual thrill derived through forcibly reversing power roles with men. That’s entirely anti-feminist, and not even remotely like Feminism.
Gynarchism is entirely disregarded as ridiculous by Proper Feminismâ„¢.
Statistics show aggregate totals of events of the past, other Scienceâ„¢ aims to establish why things look inequal amongst the â€God-given†or “protected“ statuses (in both directions; gender, for example, is about men and women) in the statistics, and some (typically) ethical, moral, and well-educated forward-thinking people offer solutions to policymakers who expend a lot of critical thinking to enact proposals.
You seem to claim that women have so many privileges, and that their lives are so grand, and men have it so much harder, yet women are out of line for disliking this supposed privilege. Are you familiar with the birdcage argument/story?
Why do you fail to understand this? Fundamentalist Christians : Christianity :: stereotypes and people abusing the label “Feminists“ : Feminism
Few changes are likely to be legislated during your lifetime, and time will surely march on without diving into Gynarchist Ruleâ„¢. Yet, you stand here, shouting it from the rooftops as if it were the most grave threat to humanity.
Why u so mad, tho?
But, seriously, could you provide answers to these points? I’d like to hear them. Sorry for the edits.
You’re entirely overwrought with irritation about gender conflict.
Feminism is not defined by non-consensual sexual thrill derived through forcibly reversing power roles with men. That’s entirely anti-feminist, and not even remotely like Feminism.
Gynarchism is entirely disregarded as ridiculous by Proper Feminismâ„¢.
Statistics show aggregate totals of events of the past, other Scienceâ„¢ aims to establish why things look inequal amongst the â€God-given†or “protected“ statuses (in both directions; gender, for example, is about men and women) in the statistics, and some (typically) ethical, moral, and well-educated forward-thinking people offer solutions to policymakers who expend a lot of critical thinking to enact proposals.
You seem to claim that women have so many privileges, and that their lives are so grand, and men have it so much harder, yet women are out of line for disliking this supposed privilege. Are you familiar with the birdcage argument/story?
Why do you fail to understand this? Fundamentalist Christians : Christianity :: stereotypes and people abusing the label “Feminists“ : Feminism
Few changes are likely to be legislated during your lifetime, and time will surely march on without diving into Gynarchist Ruleâ„¢. Yet, you stand here, shouting it from the rooftops as if it were the most grave threat to humanity.
Why u so mad, tho?
But, seriously, could you provide answers to these points? I’d like to hear them. Sorry for the edits.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 41 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,034
Feminism tries to correct all of those inequalities you're bawwwing about, faggot.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,051
@52,008 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
Stop being a pussy and act like a man. Now go cheat on your wife, drink hard liquor, and beat up a minority. NOW.
Stop being a pussy and act like a man. Now go cheat on your wife, drink hard liquor, and beat up a minority. NOW.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,167
I'm the random string of characters. I posted the list there, and responded to the comments.
The Owl !yshAAUvyds joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,169
Gay/10
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,172
@52,034 (K)
Trying is a world away from doing. 9/10 times, it's women's issues they're focused on, with men's issues receiving only a cursory glance. I guess skinny models on billboards are more important than men being driven to kill themselves.
Try to keep your apology brief.
Trying is a world away from doing. 9/10 times, it's women's issues they're focused on, with men's issues receiving only a cursory glance. I guess skinny models on billboards are more important than men being driven to kill themselves.
Try to keep your apology brief.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,217
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
A lot of that list is true but most of those things has a direct parallel with the problems of women. Take number one for example, men are more likely to be murdered but men are also way more likely to be murderers. Or number four, the female equivalent would be that it's much less acceptable for her to show anger. I believe that a lot of the problems between the sexes come from our unhealthy attitudes about sex and unequal gender roles, no matter who they favor.
A lot of that list is true but most of those things has a direct parallel with the problems of women. Take number one for example, men are more likely to be murdered but men are also way more likely to be murderers. Or number four, the female equivalent would be that it's much less acceptable for her to show anger. I believe that a lot of the problems between the sexes come from our unhealthy attitudes about sex and unequal gender roles, no matter who they favor.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,325
@52,172 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
Who are “they?â€
How does poor execution subvert the overall position of Feminism? Feminism truly is about freeing all gender identities from the limitations and flaws of patriarchy. It should be of no surprise that people who act upon Feminism's ideals would choose to start with the most obvious and easily-corrected wrongs that are ethical/moral issues (the concept of equality), rather than more complex, socio-cultural things like the causes and results of crime and deviance. (Yes, I know that ethics and morality are integral to socio-cultural issues, but there is a subtle hierarchy.) Sociologists have put endless thought and effort into deviance issues, and society is still not even close to a “good†solution.
Why do you assume bad faith? Why can you pick your pet cause, but it's wrong or indefensible for others to pick their own pet causes?
Does decreasing the subjugation and oppression of skinny models increase the likelihood that you, a man, will kill or be killed?
Who are “they?â€
How does poor execution subvert the overall position of Feminism? Feminism truly is about freeing all gender identities from the limitations and flaws of patriarchy. It should be of no surprise that people who act upon Feminism's ideals would choose to start with the most obvious and easily-corrected wrongs that are ethical/moral issues (the concept of equality), rather than more complex, socio-cultural things like the causes and results of crime and deviance. (Yes, I know that ethics and morality are integral to socio-cultural issues, but there is a subtle hierarchy.) Sociologists have put endless thought and effort into deviance issues, and society is still not even close to a “good†solution.
Why do you assume bad faith? Why can you pick your pet cause, but it's wrong or indefensible for others to pick their own pet causes?
Does decreasing the subjugation and oppression of skinny models increase the likelihood that you, a man, will kill or be killed?
(Edited 14 minutes later.)
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #52,331
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #52,869
bump
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,184
A woman can drive a man to attempt suicide and then "she's the victim".
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,190
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW double-posted this 15 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,235
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,263
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,264
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,268
Tedious and opinionated.
No literary value whatsoever.
No literary value whatsoever.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,307
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #53,309
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,415
@53,264 (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
> I want him to attempt a response. Maybe it's an impostor.
My tripcode hasn't been cracked yet.
I don't know what's unclear about what I said. Till I do I can't explain. I'm not a mind reader.
> I want him to attempt a response. Maybe it's an impostor.
My tripcode hasn't been cracked yet.
I don't know what's unclear about what I said. Till I do I can't explain. I'm not a mind reader.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,427
@previous (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
So you're saying that you creep a girl out, she tells you so because you're creepy, and then she's not a victim when you harass her on the Internet?
So you're saying that you creep a girl out, she tells you so because you're creepy, and then she's not a victim when you harass her on the Internet?
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,428
@previous (I)
Why would you assume I was talking about a specific instance? And why would you assume that I've not been driven to suicide long ago too?
Why would you assume I was talking about a specific instance? And why would you assume that I've not been driven to suicide long ago too?
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,431
@53,415 (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
Tell me about some of these instances of women driving men to commit suicide. Also, if someone chooses to kill themselves, isn't that usually their own fault?
Tell me about some of these instances of women driving men to commit suicide. Also, if someone chooses to kill themselves, isn't that usually their own fault?
nimajsns replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,433
@53,428 (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
Well it would only make sense that you've scared multiple girls to the point of them making you suicidal. Aspie retard.
Well it would only make sense that you've scared multiple girls to the point of them making you suicidal. Aspie retard.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,447
@53,415 (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
> I'm not a mind reader
Oh, really? I was under the impression that you were psychic.
Even though literally every one of your predictions about me was incorrect.
> I'm not a mind reader
Oh, really? I was under the impression that you were psychic.
Even though literally every one of your predictions about me was incorrect.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #53,465
Are you still here Leo?
AC !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,060
I fear that our dear Mindwurms has been captured and held against his will by a Gynarchist who is currently pleasuring herself over his whimpers and fear.
Who shall lead the rescue party?
Who shall lead the rescue party?
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,072
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,079
@53,428 (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
Because you continue to talk about this shit and it's plainly obvious whom you are referring to. You can't seem to cut out mentioning it whenever you get the opportunity, and it's fucking scary at the volume of which you discuss it. You should seek some counseling, man. Or you could just man up to it, admit what you're doing, or...you know, actually go through with what you're talking about and kill yourself, faggot.
Because you continue to talk about this shit and it's plainly obvious whom you are referring to. You can't seem to cut out mentioning it whenever you get the opportunity, and it's fucking scary at the volume of which you discuss it. You should seek some counseling, man. Or you could just man up to it, admit what you're doing, or...you know, actually go through with what you're talking about and kill yourself, faggot.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,081
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,084
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
Seriously. The cat is out of the bag, and it's not like it's any sort of secret anymore. The only reason anyone mentions it to him is because it's evolved from just "pathetic because you can't get over being rejected" to "extreme creepiness/stalkerish behaviour and constantly threatening suicide over it". I really think it's a serious mental issue which needs to be addressed by professionals.
Seriously. The cat is out of the bag, and it's not like it's any sort of secret anymore. The only reason anyone mentions it to him is because it's evolved from just "pathetic because you can't get over being rejected" to "extreme creepiness/stalkerish behaviour and constantly threatening suicide over it". I really think it's a serious mental issue which needs to be addressed by professionals.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,085
@previous (E)
It's sad when everyone thinks that you're creepy, but you just can't see it. I actually want him to start using her name, because at least it would show that he had some balls.
It's sad when everyone thinks that you're creepy, but you just can't see it. I actually want him to start using her name, because at least it would show that he had some balls.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,088
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
And in part, I think if he did he probably wouldn't get nearly as much flak from the 'meatpuppets' over it.
And in part, I think if he did he probably wouldn't get nearly as much flak from the 'meatpuppets' over it.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,090
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,092
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,094
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,097
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
I found the rest of that post to really off-set whatever humour he was trying to conjure there, toto. It also drives home the point of what we're talking about here.
I found the rest of that post to really off-set whatever humour he was trying to conjure there, toto. It also drives home the point of what we're talking about here.
Nega !.Y4iB6KrDo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,099
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,100
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,101
Misogyny aside, most of those are pretty accurate.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #54,103
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 22 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #55,155
Bump.
protip !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,672
;_;
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,673
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,674
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
I would love to have a friendly conversation with our dear Mindwurms to separate fact from fiction.
I would love to have a friendly conversation with our dear Mindwurms to separate fact from fiction.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,683
@previous (protip !tyLmN8C16E)> I would love to have a friendly conversation with our dear Mindwurms to separate fact from fiction.
I'd enjoy that... but nuffin will happen.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,685
@56,674 (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
He's intentional avoiding this. He likes to post things and hide from the fall back.
He's intentional avoiding this. He likes to post things and hide from the fall back.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,802
I'll answer whatever you ask about my beliefs. Except for AC, he can go climb a wall of dicks.
Edit: Also, the reason I leave is not out of Cartman-esque spite but because I have a job where I'm pretty much working 24/7 and school.
Edit: Also, the reason I leave is not out of Cartman-esque spite but because I have a job where I'm pretty much working 24/7 and school.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,824
I guess with all my talk of free dialogue it would be wrong not to accept everyone's questions. I'll accept AC's inquiries as a matter of principal.
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,826
Okay, so reply to all of that shit up there ^^^^^^
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #56,828
@previous (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
Alright, I have tests so it may take a while. I've got this page bookmarked and I will respond. I've just got a lot of stuff to take care of and this has been a very busy week, so please be patient.
Alright, I have tests so it may take a while. I've got this page bookmarked and I will respond. I've just got a lot of stuff to take care of and this has been a very busy week, so please be patient.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #57,012
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #57,999
> Who are “they?â€
Gynocentrists, or people who want the lives of women to be improved even at great expense to the lives of men.
> How does poor execution subvert the overall position of Feminism?
Most feminists have claimed feminism is the only gender equality movement, and a majority of feminists claim the Men's Rights Movement is unnecessary or even harmful. They want to socially engineer society towards their views, and yet they fail to see their own hypocrisy.
> Feminism truly is about freeing all gender identities from the limitations and flaws of patriarchy.
The problem is with how it's executed.
> It should be of no surprise that people who act upon Feminism's ideals would choose to start with the most obvious and easily-corrected wrongs that are ethical/moral issues (the concept of equality),
How are female problems more easily corrected than male ones? How about encouraging women to start conversations with men they like? That's a fairly simple thing which empowers women in choosing relationships, but feminists seem to shy away from anything which places personal accountability on the shoulders of a woman.
> rather than more complex, socio-cultural things like the causes and results of crime and deviance. (Yes, I know that ethics and morality are integral to socio-cultural issues, but there is a subtle hierarchy.) Sociologists have put endless thought and effort into deviance issues, and society is still not even close to a “good†solution.
Encouraging discourse and intimacy between the sexes, as stated above, would certainly not hurt. Rather, feminists warn women of the potential danger of every man, and the supposed prevalence of charismatic sociopaths who prey on women without tangible evidence. They also will maliciously release erroneous and deliberately misleading claims to further their own ideology, men be damned. These statistics are still quoted in feminist literature, and feminists have done little to nothing to have them corrected and act to hostility towards even the mention of scrutiny. Pardon me if I show a little aversion to any group which condones such tactics.
> Why do you assume bad faith? Why can you pick your pet cause, but it's wrong or indefensible for others to pick their own pet causes?
It is indefensible when good methodology and impartial research is the exception, not the law.
> Does decreasing the subjugation and oppression of skinny models increase the likelihood that you, a man, will kill or be killed?
No, rather it shows me the value of my life compared to the weight of a woman. Additionally, it is not "decreasing" but rather using strong-arm methods such as censorship and legislation to force the industry and free market to conform to their will. If women want to buy those magazines or watch the shows, they should have every right to. If they disagree with the content, they have every right to ignore or attempt to boycott it.
Gynocentrists, or people who want the lives of women to be improved even at great expense to the lives of men.
> How does poor execution subvert the overall position of Feminism?
Most feminists have claimed feminism is the only gender equality movement, and a majority of feminists claim the Men's Rights Movement is unnecessary or even harmful. They want to socially engineer society towards their views, and yet they fail to see their own hypocrisy.
> Feminism truly is about freeing all gender identities from the limitations and flaws of patriarchy.
The problem is with how it's executed.
> It should be of no surprise that people who act upon Feminism's ideals would choose to start with the most obvious and easily-corrected wrongs that are ethical/moral issues (the concept of equality),
How are female problems more easily corrected than male ones? How about encouraging women to start conversations with men they like? That's a fairly simple thing which empowers women in choosing relationships, but feminists seem to shy away from anything which places personal accountability on the shoulders of a woman.
> rather than more complex, socio-cultural things like the causes and results of crime and deviance. (Yes, I know that ethics and morality are integral to socio-cultural issues, but there is a subtle hierarchy.) Sociologists have put endless thought and effort into deviance issues, and society is still not even close to a “good†solution.
Encouraging discourse and intimacy between the sexes, as stated above, would certainly not hurt. Rather, feminists warn women of the potential danger of every man, and the supposed prevalence of charismatic sociopaths who prey on women without tangible evidence. They also will maliciously release erroneous and deliberately misleading claims to further their own ideology, men be damned. These statistics are still quoted in feminist literature, and feminists have done little to nothing to have them corrected and act to hostility towards even the mention of scrutiny. Pardon me if I show a little aversion to any group which condones such tactics.
> Why do you assume bad faith? Why can you pick your pet cause, but it's wrong or indefensible for others to pick their own pet causes?
It is indefensible when good methodology and impartial research is the exception, not the law.
> Does decreasing the subjugation and oppression of skinny models increase the likelihood that you, a man, will kill or be killed?
No, rather it shows me the value of my life compared to the weight of a woman. Additionally, it is not "decreasing" but rather using strong-arm methods such as censorship and legislation to force the industry and free market to conform to their will. If women want to buy those magazines or watch the shows, they should have every right to. If they disagree with the content, they have every right to ignore or attempt to boycott it.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #58,009
@52,008 (AC !tyLmN8C16E)
Feminism has legislated changes which have changed humanity for the worse. The sex criminal registry is a way to insure sex offenders cannot reintegrate themselves into society. Why does a man who had drunk sex with a woman require more monitoring after release than someone who ends a human's life?
Additionally, their reliance on strong-arm tactics such as sexual harassment legislation implies a desire more to control what men do than to empower women. The fact that women care more about a secretary overhearing a dirty joke than the predominantly male coal miners breathing dirty air (and willing to accept this abuse to become a good provider) shows me that feminism is just the same old bullshit about men giving women whatever they want without seeming the slightest bit offensive.
Additionally, your claims that the presence of a women's rights movements could be duplicated for the MRM. Why are complaints about some women seeing only a man's wallets, occupation, or social aptitude somehow frivolous? Why is it that feminists feel women should not subject themselves to diets and surgery to meet male standards, but feminists are silent about men working themselves to an early grave to meet women's social and financial standards?
Feminism has legislated changes which have changed humanity for the worse. The sex criminal registry is a way to insure sex offenders cannot reintegrate themselves into society. Why does a man who had drunk sex with a woman require more monitoring after release than someone who ends a human's life?
Additionally, their reliance on strong-arm tactics such as sexual harassment legislation implies a desire more to control what men do than to empower women. The fact that women care more about a secretary overhearing a dirty joke than the predominantly male coal miners breathing dirty air (and willing to accept this abuse to become a good provider) shows me that feminism is just the same old bullshit about men giving women whatever they want without seeming the slightest bit offensive.
Additionally, your claims that the presence of a women's rights movements could be duplicated for the MRM. Why are complaints about some women seeing only a man's wallets, occupation, or social aptitude somehow frivolous? Why is it that feminists feel women should not subject themselves to diets and surgery to meet male standards, but feminists are silent about men working themselves to an early grave to meet women's social and financial standards?
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #58,011
I've also responsed to a claim here about my supposed misogyny:
---
Your moral compass seems a bit skewed. If you had to spend the rest of your life in the wrong body, I don't think your views on feminism would remain as you've made them out to be. As an engineer, you'd be seen as incompitent compared to your colleages only because of your appearance. If you wanted to express your sexuality like you claim you have, you'd be objectivized even further. If you wanted to be treated as you were before, you might even be labeled as a feminist!
- Source
---
Response:
Ignoring the Bates-esque nature of the question, I would probably be paid about as much as I was before*, assuming I wasn't deported first to limbo for not having any identification. I'm not sure how incompetent I would be seen as considering my pay would be largely the same, even though women take more short-term sick leave**. Because I was raised to be industrious and take pride in my work - small things like designing and improving the infrastructure you could not live without - I doubt I would take it.
I would also have to get my clothes tailored, and my attitude and behavior would be largely unchanged. As shocking as this may be, I would not become more susceptible to vapid magazines or fashion shows because my body changed, nor would I want to violate the first amendment by banning or censoring them.
As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. I would not take some bizarre "wrong body" dilemma as an excuse to blame any inadequacy on my former sex. Rather, I would focus on making things better.
* nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99352.htm (small difference in earnings, explainable by rounding errors or willingness to relocate, etc.)
** sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm
- Source
---
Your moral compass seems a bit skewed. If you had to spend the rest of your life in the wrong body, I don't think your views on feminism would remain as you've made them out to be. As an engineer, you'd be seen as incompitent compared to your colleages only because of your appearance. If you wanted to express your sexuality like you claim you have, you'd be objectivized even further. If you wanted to be treated as you were before, you might even be labeled as a feminist!
- Source
---
Response:
Ignoring the Bates-esque nature of the question, I would probably be paid about as much as I was before*, assuming I wasn't deported first to limbo for not having any identification. I'm not sure how incompetent I would be seen as considering my pay would be largely the same, even though women take more short-term sick leave**. Because I was raised to be industrious and take pride in my work - small things like designing and improving the infrastructure you could not live without - I doubt I would take it.
I would also have to get my clothes tailored, and my attitude and behavior would be largely unchanged. As shocking as this may be, I would not become more susceptible to vapid magazines or fashion shows because my body changed, nor would I want to violate the first amendment by banning or censoring them.
As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. I would not take some bizarre "wrong body" dilemma as an excuse to blame any inadequacy on my former sex. Rather, I would focus on making things better.
* nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99352.htm (small difference in earnings, explainable by rounding errors or willingness to relocate, etc.)
** sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm
- Source
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #58,071
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
A lot of what you said was true but doesn't make a good case for the overall evils of feminism. So many of the problems between men and women are
directly caused by how young girls and boys are raised. Women are taught to be helpless and not take accountability for their actions. If you suddenly changed into a female your views wouldn't change but if you were born a female things might be very different. Look at the advertising catered towards women and you will see a sharp contrast to those aimed towards men. If some things are skewed in favor of women, that is called benevolent sexism and it's still wrong. I also don't feel like you are a misogynist because of your political views, but because of the mean and spiteful jabs you only ever aim towards women.
A lot of what you said was true but doesn't make a good case for the overall evils of feminism. So many of the problems between men and women are
directly caused by how young girls and boys are raised. Women are taught to be helpless and not take accountability for their actions. If you suddenly changed into a female your views wouldn't change but if you were born a female things might be very different. Look at the advertising catered towards women and you will see a sharp contrast to those aimed towards men. If some things are skewed in favor of women, that is called benevolent sexism and it's still wrong. I also don't feel like you are a misogynist because of your political views, but because of the mean and spiteful jabs you only ever aim towards women.
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #58,109
I like to think of biological commensalisms, cooperative arrangements between two different species, to be a perfect metaphor for gender relations.
Let's take ants and acacia trees. There is a certain type of acacia and a certain type of ant that form a close cooperative arrangement - the acacia grows huge hollow horns, which this species of ant bores tiny holes into. Living in the acacia, the ants attack any herbivores that attempt to eat their host, eat away any ground plants that are within a certain distance of their host, and generally do everything possible to keep their host in good health. In return, the acacia provides food and thorny, durable shelter not likely to be compromised by the kinds of creatures that would eat ants.
This roughly describes the close, sharing near-symbiotic interplay and exchange that all of us would like to see men and women display, doesn't it? Well, why don't we see that in the world today?
Biological commensalisms are prone to breakdown in a sense. They only seem to crop up in nature under conditions that are very harsh: either an extreme scarcity of food, a very dangerous environment, or both. What you'll see is that when living gets easy, this kind of cooperation tends to break down. If the environment isn't so harsh that the ants need the shelter, or if the growing environment is favorable enough that the acacia doesn't really need the protection of ants, they go their separate ways and live alone; they are no longer getting a compensatory return for what they invest in cooperation.
As far as I can tell, that is where we humans are at. Our women and men can't get along because we don't need to, because survival is a given and our ancient evolutionary family hierarchies, relationships and gender roles don't do us any good in this world where nobody expects any more of us than to follow orders and buy hot food.
If you hate modern gender relations, don't blame one of the genders - blame the modern society that caused those relations to fail.
Let's take ants and acacia trees. There is a certain type of acacia and a certain type of ant that form a close cooperative arrangement - the acacia grows huge hollow horns, which this species of ant bores tiny holes into. Living in the acacia, the ants attack any herbivores that attempt to eat their host, eat away any ground plants that are within a certain distance of their host, and generally do everything possible to keep their host in good health. In return, the acacia provides food and thorny, durable shelter not likely to be compromised by the kinds of creatures that would eat ants.
This roughly describes the close, sharing near-symbiotic interplay and exchange that all of us would like to see men and women display, doesn't it? Well, why don't we see that in the world today?
Biological commensalisms are prone to breakdown in a sense. They only seem to crop up in nature under conditions that are very harsh: either an extreme scarcity of food, a very dangerous environment, or both. What you'll see is that when living gets easy, this kind of cooperation tends to break down. If the environment isn't so harsh that the ants need the shelter, or if the growing environment is favorable enough that the acacia doesn't really need the protection of ants, they go their separate ways and live alone; they are no longer getting a compensatory return for what they invest in cooperation.
As far as I can tell, that is where we humans are at. Our women and men can't get along because we don't need to, because survival is a given and our ancient evolutionary family hierarchies, relationships and gender roles don't do us any good in this world where nobody expects any more of us than to follow orders and buy hot food.
If you hate modern gender relations, don't blame one of the genders - blame the modern society that caused those relations to fail.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #58,172
@previous (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
> If you hate modern gender relations, don't blame one of the genders - blame the modern society that caused those relations to fail.
Well said. Gender conflicts are much deeper than simple statistics and patterns.
@OP thanks for replying. Those are interesting points, and I’m not immediately sure what to think of them. Are class warfare and economic strife at the heart of all your issues?
> If you hate modern gender relations, don't blame one of the genders - blame the modern society that caused those relations to fail.
Well said. Gender conflicts are much deeper than simple statistics and patterns.
@OP thanks for replying. Those are interesting points, and I’m not immediately sure what to think of them. Are class warfare and economic strife at the heart of all your issues?
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 36 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #58,219
@58,009 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
> feminists are silent about men working themselves to an early grave to meet women's social and financial standards?
My opinion of you just dropped from "high-functioning retard" to "sub-DM troll". Abolishing the social and financial dependence of (many) women on men is the crux of feminism, its prime object. Remember that "patriarchy" thing we're always bawwing about?
> feminists are silent about men working themselves to an early grave to meet women's social and financial standards?
My opinion of you just dropped from "high-functioning retard" to "sub-DM troll". Abolishing the social and financial dependence of (many) women on men is the crux of feminism, its prime object. Remember that "patriarchy" thing we're always bawwing about?
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #58,394
@previous (U)
> My opinion of you just dropped from "high-functioning retard" to "sub-DM troll".
I don't respect your intelligence enough to care about your petty whims, and I only reply to this out of principal.
> Abolishing the social and financial dependence of (many) women on men is the crux of feminism, its prime object.
Then why don't feminists want to abolish alimony or child support? Why are men taxed so single mothers can get free money? Why can't fathers abort a woman's ability to collect child support during the same trimesters a woman can abort his future child?
> Remember that "patriarchy" thing we're always bawwing about?
You mean the conspiratorial organization which seeks to defend the privilege of white males to be innocent until proven guilty?
Try to keep your apology brief, I'm busy this time of the year.
> My opinion of you just dropped from "high-functioning retard" to "sub-DM troll".
I don't respect your intelligence enough to care about your petty whims, and I only reply to this out of principal.
> Abolishing the social and financial dependence of (many) women on men is the crux of feminism, its prime object.
Then why don't feminists want to abolish alimony or child support? Why are men taxed so single mothers can get free money? Why can't fathers abort a woman's ability to collect child support during the same trimesters a woman can abort his future child?
> Remember that "patriarchy" thing we're always bawwing about?
You mean the conspiratorial organization which seeks to defend the privilege of white males to be innocent until proven guilty?
Try to keep your apology brief, I'm busy this time of the year.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #58,400
@58,172 (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
> Are class warfare and economic strife at the heart of all your issues?
I'd say there is some relation between class and cultural tension and the tension between the sexes. Generally the lowest rungs of society - the homeless, incarcerated, mentally ill, or those labeled socially/intellectually deviant - are occupied by men, and due to feminist inaction many members of the Men's Rights Movement have taken it on themselves to give these people a voice.
> Are class warfare and economic strife at the heart of all your issues?
I'd say there is some relation between class and cultural tension and the tension between the sexes. Generally the lowest rungs of society - the homeless, incarcerated, mentally ill, or those labeled socially/intellectually deviant - are occupied by men, and due to feminist inaction many members of the Men's Rights Movement have taken it on themselves to give these people a voice.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #58,825
@58,394 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
Are you really against child support? I don't agree with alimony either, but child support?
Are you really against child support? I don't agree with alimony either, but child support?
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #58,977
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
> Are you really against child support? I don't agree with alimony either, but child support?
Certain forms of child support. A man should have the option to abort child support within the same trimesters a woman can abort their future child. Additionally, if a spouse initiates a no-fault divorce and gains sole custody of the children, any claim to child support should be void. Child support should only be collected if it is clear the accused had some wrongdoing which lead to the termination of the relationship.
> Are you really against child support? I don't agree with alimony either, but child support?
Certain forms of child support. A man should have the option to abort child support within the same trimesters a woman can abort their future child. Additionally, if a spouse initiates a no-fault divorce and gains sole custody of the children, any claim to child support should be void. Child support should only be collected if it is clear the accused had some wrongdoing which lead to the termination of the relationship.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #58,986
I'd rather live in a patriarch than a matriarch. Fuck yeah being the dominant gender!
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,003
@58,977 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
I don't think that it matters who caused the end of a relationship. Whoever has primary custody of the child should get payments to raise said child.
I don't think that it matters who caused the end of a relationship. Whoever has primary custody of the child should get payments to raise said child.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,019
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
If they both agree on who should get exclusive custody or agree to a majority custody arrangement. If one wants exclusive custody - ie: to limit visitation rights of the other without a good reason or to deliberately alienate a child from the other parent (with definitive evidence of said alienation) - then he or she should forfeit claims to child support or alimony. The parent should be allowed to have some connection to the child he's supporting for the collecting parent to receive payment.
If they both agree on who should get exclusive custody or agree to a majority custody arrangement. If one wants exclusive custody - ie: to limit visitation rights of the other without a good reason or to deliberately alienate a child from the other parent (with definitive evidence of said alienation) - then he or she should forfeit claims to child support or alimony. The parent should be allowed to have some connection to the child he's supporting for the collecting parent to receive payment.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,023
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
What if one parent does not want to see the child? Should they still have to pay child support?
What if one parent does not want to see the child? Should they still have to pay child support?
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW double-posted this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,024
By the way, I really appreciate that fact that you're able to discuss this in a calm and civil manner.
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,032
protip !tyLmN8C16E double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,034
@58,400 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
> Generally the lowest rungs of society - the homeless, incarcerated, mentally ill, or those labeled socially/intellectually deviant - are occupied by men
Could you cite a source for this? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true, but I think there’s a lot of causation that you’re happy to ignore, and instead just project onto Feminism.
> Generally the lowest rungs of society - the homeless, incarcerated, mentally ill, or those labeled socially/intellectually deviant - are occupied by men
Could you cite a source for this? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true, but I think there’s a lot of causation that you’re happy to ignore, and instead just project onto Feminism.
protip !tyLmN8C16E triple-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,036
This is a nitpick, but seriously, Mindwurms, almost all of your links are to books, opinion pieces, and blogs. I’m not saying they’re wrong or not legitimate sources, but they’re quite inaccessible, and they’re not really an effective rhetorical device.
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #59,146
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
Could you guys speak up? I can barely hear your bickering over the sound of me being right.
The question of which group "sucks more" is idiotic. Both genders suck, because people suck. Watching internet gender wars is like watching bums fight for money. It's two groups of slovenly, filthy vermin pissing into the wind trying to convince only themselves that their group is entitled to social support while the other is not. Much like niggers crying about reparations money, it's just another pack of fatbodies hoping that the government or some other greater social institution like the law or the will of the masses will be their permanent meal ticket.
Everybody gather around and watch; it's another glorious triumph of "social progress" in action!
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
@58,109 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
Could you guys speak up? I can barely hear your bickering over the sound of me being right.
The question of which group "sucks more" is idiotic. Both genders suck, because people suck. Watching internet gender wars is like watching bums fight for money. It's two groups of slovenly, filthy vermin pissing into the wind trying to convince only themselves that their group is entitled to social support while the other is not. Much like niggers crying about reparations money, it's just another pack of fatbodies hoping that the government or some other greater social institution like the law or the will of the masses will be their permanent meal ticket.
Everybody gather around and watch; it's another glorious triumph of "social progress" in action!