lets collectively lol @ these "I need feminism because..." pics

Ernil Menegil

New member
Aug 2, 2010
matthew_lane said:
darkfox85 said:
matthew_lane said:
Hahahahahahaha, no. I'm sorry, but this one is objectively a big old no. If i have an engineering degree i'm taught how to become an engineer... If you have a womens study degree you are equipped to become a.... woman? A study? a what? I mean women studies is right up there with philosophy as a major... Heck once you've finished a degree in either you only need to learn six more words to be employable: Would you like fries with that.
Every time I post in threads like these I get a sickening lurch in my stomach, and I know I'm going to regret this, but I just couldn?t pass without saying this is one the snobbiest and most vitriolic things I?ve read in a while without being cartoonish.

I hate the picture as well because it?s obviously fake but you are fucking, loathsome.
No it really isn't. The fact is that women studies much like philosophy is an intellectual dead end as far as gainful employment goes. if you get a doctorate in Women Studies, the only area your field of expertise is going to lead to is becoming a lecturer in womens studies... An neither course load is worthy af academic respect, since neither philosophy nor womens study are fact based systems: Both are just absorbing the opinions of other equally unskeptical people, without critical analysis.

Frankly womens study should not be a recognised course load in legitimate tertiary institutes of education, fior exactly the same reason Intelligent Design shouldn't be.
Sad to say matthew here is very right. From a strictly employment basis, they are absolutely worthless. Of course philosophy isn't worthless, but you won't score a job on philosophy alone, because its core principle is basically idle thinking. And idle thinking is just a big no no in a modern society that sanctifies labour.


Elite Member
Mar 20, 2010
bleys2487 said:
Feminism, the radical belief that women are people too.
I don't think anyone treats the idea that women are people as in any way radical. The things that seem to be radical ideas these days are derivative of that though, such as "the belief that women, being people, are every bit as responsible for their actions as men" or "the belief that women, being people, are every bit as capable of being terrible people as men."

DevilWithaHalo said:
bleys2487 said:
Those poor middle class, white males. Must be so hard. I mean, after all, you probably held a door for a woman. Poor boys, so oppressed.
I like the "middle class" caveat. I'm sure the "middle class", white females have thoroughly been oppressed by the system that bends over backwards to give them all of the rights men have and some extra men don't. (I'll ask you, since other people can't provide an answer; what right do men have that women do not?)
Assuming we mean in western nations, I can answer that one -- the right to serve in specific military roles in certain countries. That's about all I've got though. If we don't limit ourselves to western nations, then there's quite a bit more of a list.

DevilWithaHalo said:
tyriless said:
-equal pay for equal work
That's a matter of great debate. I'm curious what your thoughts on the following are... <youtube=ziWzgs40euc>
Actually, that kind of thing usually trips off the "equal pay for equal work" argument -- for the most part it's already here. There's a tendency to quote a "70-odd cents on the dollar" number without understanding what that number measures -- median annual income for males compared to median annual income for females, without considering any other factors at all. Differences in overtime worked, industry distribution of employees, positions worked, work history, there's a cavalcade of confounding variables that effect the results but aren't reflected. There was a report done that tried to account for such factors, and it came up with a comparatively tiny difference (it was 90-odd cents on the dollar at worst) and a handful of additional factors that couldn't be properly isolated and investigated with the available data sources that would tend to adjust the number closer to parity by an indeterminable amount.

For example, if someone made the same hourly rate as me, but worked no overtime, they'd earn "73 cents to my dollar" by the logic used to get the unadjusted wage gap, and "56 cents on the dollar" compared to someone working the maximum amount of overtime my employer allows. Are they getting equal pay for equal work? Why is that different if that someone is a woman?

DevilWithaHalo said:
tyriless said:
-a woman's right to do with her body what she wants
To the extent that it does not adversely affect males in a disproportionate way; I agree. I believe women should have the right to an abortion to determine whether or not they have a child; I do not agree their decision be forced on the male.
If I recall from the other thread, I think we agree here. Pro-choice, feel men should also have the option to opt out of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood within a limited window (before a certain point in pregnancy or within so many days of being notified of paternity, whichever is later [so she still has the option to abort if she wishes, so long as she advises him of paternity in a remotely timely fashion while he retains his options if she doesn't]). Remember a man who doesn't want to be a parent is a deadbeat scumbag, a woman who doesn't want to be a parent is pro-choice. =)

DevilWithaHalo said:
tyriless said:
-a woman's worth is not inherently tied to her ability to reproduce and a man's desire to copulate with her
Outside of sexual reproduction, I agree. Similarly, a man's worth is not inherently tied with his social status and female's desire to access his resources.
Again, I agree. Outside of, well, sex and reproduction (alone or in combination) her ability to reproduce and men's desire to have sex with her should be irrelevant. I'm not sure attractive women want to be treated like men though, that's a big loss of beneficial treatment.

DevilWithaHalo said:
tyriless said:
- a fair representation of women and men in management positions
I disagree. Equal representation is not necessary for equal parity gender wise. Our current government (USA) is dominated by men; yet every right and provision is granted to women by these men. Exactly what would change in politics if we had a few more women and a few less men in it? Their job function remains the same; serve the civilian community and insure equal rights and protections to everyone in it.

How will a business change if a CEO is a female as opposed to male? The structure of the business is still primarily determined by it's product/service value and process. Will KFC serve their chicken in pink buckets instead? We're arguing semantics at this point are we not?
Tyriless' problem here is the good old standard representation = opportunity argument that gets seen kind of shockingly often with people arguing about equal opportunity in employment.

An example: There is a job where I work that has more individual positions than everyone else combined. No women hold this job. Is that discriminatory? Now I get to throw in that only one woman has ever even applied, and she failed the same test that 80+% of applicants fail. Is it still discriminatory because we didn't give a position to a substandard performer even though she was female and we don't have any women in that position?

DevilWithaHalo said:
tyriless said:
- a women or men having to endure sexual harassment to maintain or progress through their career.
I think you may have not worded this correctly; do you mean *avoid* sexual harassment?
I think tyriless meant "endure", in the sense that having to be on the receiving end of sexual harassment should not be necessary to maintain or progress one's career. I can't see any real issue with that, at least until we define "harassment" in too broad a sense.

DevilWithaHalo said:
tyriless said:
If you believe in none of these, you are huge dick.
Does that mean if I only believe in some I'm half a dick? I just want to make sure I understand the insults lobbied at me.
I think it's important to note that tyriless used a gendered insult demonstrating a shocking degree of misandry. After all, tyriless is insulting someone by associating them with a penis. If a slang terms for a vagina had been used as an insult here, it would have been considered absolute proof of misogyny by people that I would love to turn loose at a dog show for trolling's sake.

boots said:
About "A no is a yes that just needs a little convicing." To qoute Joel from The Last Of Us trailer - "You are treading on some mighty thin ice here." So pressuring someone into sex is rape now? That´s questionable. Dickish, yes, but rape?
I should add that this was the response given to the question "does no mean no?" And the fact that someone wouldn't agree with that statement is incredibly frightening, not least because "a little convincing" has so many different interpretations. If you can't take a person's decision at face value and respect it - especially when it comes to something like sex - then you are straying into the area where ignoring a refusal of consent is OK.
There becomes another shade of nuance that needs considered -- was the question exactly "Does no mean no?" or "Does no always mean no?", and how many of those "A no is a yes that just needs a little convicing"s had a "sometimes" prefixed on them?

We actually had a thread on here not that long ago where one of the core topics was miscommunication of consent. If no always meant no and yes always meant yes, things would be so very much simpler. The problem is that no sometimes means yes, yes sometimes means no, sometimes body language gives one answer while verbally the reverse is being supplied, sometimes explicitly asking changes the answer (because it wasn't complicated enough without quantum consent) and so on and so on. Several men in that thread complained about the lack of clear, concise, and consistent yesses and nos from women (which then led to a whole argument about how it obviously wasn't women's responsibility to communicate consent clearly but rather men's responsibility to interpret them perfectly).

molester jester said:
TomLikesGuitar said:
If she is conscious then who cares if she's black out drunk, she's making a decision to sleep with a guy. You are responsible for the decisions you make while inebriated.

I've been in the position where a girl came up to me at a party, pulled me downstairs to her room, begged me to fuck her, and then passed out. When she woke up, she told her boyfriend (who she neglected to mention the night prior) that I'd raped her.
So what you are saying is you are a rapist.

ok cool glad we cleared that up.
Presumably you were going for the first paragraph in what you were replying to?

I always find it interesting that for whatever reason, an intoxicated woman is "unable to consent" but not "responsible for the decisions you make while inebriated" while an intoxicated man is "responsible for the decisions you make while inebriated" but not "unable to consent". Because holding intoxicated men and women to the same standard creates a lot of situations that either stop being sexual assault entirely or become mutual sexual assault which is inconvenient for the desired "men bad, women innocent" narrative. Interestingly, it creates one of those cases where the "right" feminist perspective is the one in which we deny women agency.

There's also a twitter hashtag #ineedmasculism which was originally created by 4chan as a means by which to bait internet feminist trolls. It opened with some not terribly unreasonable positions and a few mildly trollish ones, and then exploded into mockery and being trolled like this (ironically, without realizing that the purpose was to turn loose all the hatemongers that come out when someone wants to discuss those topics in one easily collectible place to make a point):

#Ineedmasculism because #TellAFeministThankYou was very, very threatening to my hard-earned privilege.
#Ineedmasculism because there's not enough wrestling on tv
#ineedmasculism because I'm a fucking idiot, apparently
#ineedmasculism because I'm not enough of a man to be comfortable with myself when there are strong women around me.
#ineedmasculism because this one time, I'm pretty sure a woman was chosen for something over me, but I bet she wasn't even better
#INeedMasculism because i'm tired of being dehumanized by the opposite gender constantly. oh wait that has never happened.
#INeedMasculism because - HAHAHAHA sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence with a straight face, even while trying to troll it.
#INeedMasculism because otherwise I might have to compete for money, power & status on my own merits! And I'm frightened I'll lose.
#INeedMasculism because I have no actual merit and it's the only way I can be sure I'll get ahead.
#INeedMasculism Men get erectile dysfunction, unless they visualize women as victims and helpless.
#ineedmasculism because I hate the idea of having to share the planet with the other 50% of the population.
#INeedMasculism because I'm the tall white one in my relationship and everyone knows that means I should get all the power.
#ineedmasculism to die in a fire.
#INeedMasculism because I can't differentiate between sexual frustration and institutionalized oppression.
#INeedMasculism because 0.001% of rapes are female on male and the FEMITOCRACY is doing nothing to address this epidemic.
#INeedMasculism because asking for consent is haaaaaaaard :(
#iNeedMasculism because these sandwiches won't make themselves
#ineedmasculism because I do not yet comprehend that I am actually a machine that churns out sex when you put in 'Nice Guy' tokens.
#INeedMasculism because I spend so much time on the Internet, bereft of human interaction, that I'll believe any misogynistic shit I read.
#INeedMasculism because that fucking slut ***** won't sleep with me because she doesn't realize how much of a nice guy I am.
#INeedMasculism because the privileged will sink to any level to hold on to their privilege.
#ineedmasculism because women are dangerously close to being considered people. the horror. THE HORROR.
#INeedMasculism because I can't be satisfied with just the (at least) five other forms of privilege I have.
"#ineedmasculism because it's easier to blame feminism than admit that women don't want to be with me because I'm repugnant."
#ineedmasculism because, I'm a hateful lil shit who worhips straw-1950's
#INeedMasculism because developing a self-confidence and respect for others is too hard, so I have to blame women for all my problems.
#INeedMasculism because I am being chased by enormous wild vaginas
#ineedmasculism because I'm a weak, useless, socially retarded neckbeard that sees being "Just friends" as a punishment.
#INeedMasculism because I dont want to make my own sandwiches.
#INeedMasculismBecause "chauvinism" sounds too girly and French.

...though there are a few who didn't realize it was trollbait and posted some serious items like:

#INeedMasculism because you cannot achieve gender equality by focusing on one gender's problems
#INeedMasculism Because when women found a rights group, they are applauded. When men do, they are demonized and scolded.
#INeedMasculism because, believe it or not, there are some mixed messages about what it means to be a man.
#ineedmasculism Because I could not identify the abusive relationship I was in, because I did not know men could even be abused.
#ineedmasculism Because my sexual assault was dismissed as ?You probably enjoyed it man.? and ?A women could never do that to you.?
#Ineedmasculism Because my college is divided 70f/30m. Nationally it?s nearly 60/40. But There is no outcry to help young men.
#Ineedmasculism Because I know too many good, loving fathers, denied access to their children.
#Ineedmasculism Because my right to bodily integrity that Feminists clamor on about for pregnant women, was taken from me hours after birth.

Interestingly, there are people using the trolling of #tellafeministthankyou that came after the trolling of #ineedmasculism in the same way that the trolling of Sarkeesian was used -- as proof of what horrible misogynistic hatemongers men on the internet are while either not recognizing or actually justifying trolling #ineedmasculism. Take from that what you will.