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


New member
Mar 22, 2011
WaitWHAT said:
If it makes you feel any better, the boys that don't stop doing that never get laid.
Ah yes, target a man's sexuality VIA his access to the female genitalia. I'm sure all the sexually frustrated MRA's are just angry they can't get any. I believe the man hating lesbian feminists also just have penis envy.

These and other nonsensical comments regarding this discussion are surely helping elevate it to one where you don't feel the need to come in and make comments of the size of their dicks, or how loose her pussy is.

Here I thought we needed feminism to insure that people weren't made fun of (or judged) for their sexual activities, or the lack thereof. Because... you know... women never do that kind of thing towards men... or something...
BiscuitTrouser said:
Please stop. Thats not even making sense.
It makes perfect sense; what justification is being used to rant against opposing opinion beyond offense? Voicing my dislike for her armpit hair does NOT harm her beyond her emotional sensitivity to counter opinion.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Wanting to change opinions on something isnt thought control.
Granted, but preventing people from voicing their opinions is censorship; a common tactic utilized in many feminist circles. The suggestion inherent in the ideology is that it would be taboo to voice dissenting opinion; which is highly ironic given the focus of the ideologies efforts to counter the current governing ?patriarchy?.
BiscuitTrouser said:
It isnt a way anyone wants.
Care to wager on that? I?ll give you the opportunity to alter this to ?any sane and reasonable person?.
BiscuitTrouser said:
I dont know how you honestly typed that out and believed it.
Because past experience has influenced by reactions to similar circumstances. I don?t have to look very far for examples on how people want to control legislation to promote their individual ideals of ethics and morality. If you are of the opinion that certain people don?t want this level of control; you need a serious reality check.
BiscuitTrouser said:
I want creationism out of schools. Is it "Thought control?" to put forward reasonable arguments against it to change peoples minds?
No, but then again, you would make a reasonable argument. I have yet to see a reasonable argument for the censorship or control of dissenting opinion. Thus far; it has and continues to remain emotionally based. Emotional reaction is a piss poor basis for educational regulation.
BiscuitTrouser said:
I want gay marriage to be legal. Again is it the same?
No, because you are allowing for alternative perspectives; whereas the argument surrounding social support and acceptance is not. Society can provide the option for gay people to get married; but it doesn?t mean other people have to support it.
BiscuitTrouser said:
From my definition of Feminism how you solve the problem and change peoples minds is this:
That?s why feminism is quickly becoming a meaningless term; your egalitarian perspective differs from many others who claim a feminist perspective (including me).
BiscuitTrouser said:
"So bloke A likes some pretty traditionally female things. It might feel natural to look down on him and laugh at him. But why do you do that?
You?ll have to give me something better to work with; considering I don?t know the last time I laughed at someone who challenged gender norms (outside crazy feminists trying to prove a point).
BiscuitTrouser said:
Is there really a logical reason?
Logic has never been a strong point in feminist discussion. Is there a logical reason someone feels oppressed because they didn?t get positive feedback for growing out their armpit hair?
BiscuitTrouser said:
Doesnt it feel weird to dislike or dirride something just because society says so and for no other logical reason?
If you lived in that particular society; no. Let?s go back to Rape Culture for a second; everything about this society teaches us that rape is a terrible atrocity and punishes it accordingly as a crime against another person. Now how does one come to learn that things, such as rape, are bad? Either because of our sense of morality governed by personal instinct, or by the education of society. The two don?t always mix; there are many things society tells me that I don?t agree with. The cold war taught both societies (capitalism and communism) to hate each other and I don?t think many people thought it was weird; considering that many people still feel the same way. Doesn?t it feel weird that England still has a monarchy? Different cultures, different values.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Id rather determine my own opinion on what makes a man, something distant from what a person enjoys in their spare time and more to do with depth of character"
Good for you; I?m personally sick and tired of other people, and various organizations telling me I?m less of a man for not doing X or not believing in Y.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Ask questions. Challenge peoples viewpoints. Use reasoned arguments.
Accept against feminism right? You may not personal believe that, but my challenge to certain inaccuracies presented by feminism has labeled me a misogynist (among other choice phrases). As if pointing out the error or outright misrepresentation of information makes me hate women. I request they do the same, because you don?t see ?reasoned arguments? outside the egalitarian perspective of feminism.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Sure its never gonna get GLOBAL acceptance but the basic idea is to say "Why do we laugh at people for that? WHY isnt that normal? Why is it forbidden or frowned upon? is there a REAL reason other than "Its what my dad did?""
Depends on the circumstance really; those questions under that thought process are too open ended to properly address. One could make arguments against traditional values as equally as one could argue for traditional values.
BiscuitTrouser said:
No one can control thoughts. Im super confused why you mentioned it. No one wants to because its blatantly impossible. It makes as much sense as accusing me of wanting to commit genocide on creationists just because i want to change their point of views. You cant just assume the most violent/unreasonable method is the one thats going to be used.
I take it you are unfamiliar with the colloquialism; ?Hope for the best but prepare for the worst??
BiscuitTrouser said:
How about reasoned dialogue and arguments?
I would love to see both, but they are few and far between amongst ?patriarchy? and ?rape culture?.
BiscuitTrouser said:
In my version of "Feminism" or whatever you want to call it i seek to make people realise when you hate something for a valid reason (It does harm to people) and when you hate something just because its the way its always been done.
Bullshit. I hate Twilight; my hatred does not harm anyone involved in that ridiculous movie. I hate hairy armpits; my hatred does not harm anyone who chooses to grow out their armpit hair. I hate hypocrisy and fallacious reasoning; my hatred does not harm anyone guilty of committing them (including me). Hatred is not the problem; the actions against something based on that hatred are, let?s not confuse them shall we? Crazy psychos hatred of men does not harm me, but the knife they want to plunge into my chest because I possess a penis certainly does.

Hating something is not a moral crime, nor a legal one; it is only the outward expression of that hatred that people take issue with. And so long as they do not directly harm another person in the process; all we?re doing is taking about policies emotional offense.
BiscuitTrouser said:
We are dropping our ridiculous standards on what is and isnt taboo.
The notions of ?ridiculous? in accord to standards are a matter of personal opinion. Let me ask you a question; who sets the standards for what is and isn?t taboo? Are you not considering that feminism merely seeks to alter the standards; therefore merely shifting the goal posts or what is and isn?t taboo?
BiscuitTrouser said:
I think we CAN reach a "Better" point even though i agree that total universal acceptance is impossible i still think we can make progress.
To what end? Change the way that people choose to segregate themselves into different clicks and groups? Are we merely attempting a feng shui in reorganizing society to better suit our current mood?
BiscuitTrouser said:
I dont really like calling it feminism because i use the same logic and thinking to justify the legalization of drugs and the removal of creationism.
Just another example of how feminism attempts to co-opt meanings that are entirely autonomous of its now all too random ideologies. Just don?t call it feminism; problem solved.
BiscuitTrouser said:
My viewpoint is basically a dislike if mindless irrational tradition in ALL forms. "Feminism" is just a smaller part of that.
So you?re OK with mindful rational tradition? Traditions come and go along with the generations and cultures that spawned them. Couldn?t? gasp? feminism be creating alternative traditional values? Let?s think of the children!
BiscuitTrouser said:
After all its now appropriate to see a womens ankle in public or for her to become rich and successful or get a real education, how much "Thought control" did that require?
Seems like you?re making a patriarchy argument here? opportunity has more to do with technological advancements than it does social policy. A factoid gender studies seems to omit in various discussions involving women?s lib and the like.
BiscuitTrouser said:
Surely if you think it IS thought control you should resist by beating women like they did in the good old days BEFORE all this thought control.
Did you buy into the notion that this was ever legal or socially acceptable? I?m amused that you suggest violence as the only means to counter censoring differing opinions.
BiscuitTrouser said:
My point is that progress was made on making harmless things acceptable before WITHOUT thought control. Why cant we do that now?
Because progress, at least the progress certain feminists want, is legislative in nature; which goes against the very foundations of a free society. Laws which prevent discrimination? Sure, I can accept that. Laws which prevent people from hurting other people?s feelings? Fuck off. I say this because it?s a tangible way to gauge progress and because then they would have authority in a legal sense to do something about it (not that it prevents them now in our sue happy country).

If it?s harmless, then it doesn?t matter whether or not anyone else accepts it; because it?s harmless. It?s harmless whether or not she grows out her armpit hair; but I don?t have to like it, agree with it, support her for doing it or find her attractive in any way. So why does ?feminism? (in her sense), seek to ?correct? my personal opinion? There?s no god damn reason.


New member
Dec 21, 2009
Muspelheim said:
Oh, faith and begora, would you look at all them lovely strawmen!

Don't worry, lads, I doubt evil hairy ladies will confiscate your dick in the dark of the night...
He... Says as he makes the biggest strawmen at the point of the thread I'm currently on...

Do you need some rest, dude?


Apr 28, 2008
TheKasp said:
Daveman said:
3) Feminism can't help with you being batshit crazy enough to WANT to be sexually harassed. Deal with it.
I get the feeling people don't get this one.

It is not that she wants to be harassed but that our culture sets harassing equal with complimenting - thus a person who is harassed should appreciate it because this implies in a sick way that she is sexy - and thus people may see the lack of harassment as commentary about her lack of beauty according to the norm.

An example about this happened here in Germany where one politician tried to compliment a woman by reducing all her qualities to her tits alone.

Really that hard? (well, actually yes)
The problem I have with the statement is they state it like every person thinks that way.
95% of the women I've gotten to know over the course of my life would be very off-put by flat out sexual harassment. I'm assuming this is akin to, say, cat-calling and not something like "I like your domo-kun bag, it's cute!"

ARE there people that think this way? Yes, of course; but how it's written implies it's the status quo. And, in my experience, it just simply... isn't.


Sep 9, 2010
Quadocky said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
Quadocky said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
BoneDaddy_SK said:
Quadocky said:
Pretty much the last question you state.

In the most hyperbolic way I can state: Supporting feminism is tantamount to destroying all logical reasoning, caring about others is ULTIMATELY POINTLESS, and that FEEEEEMAAALESSSSzzzz have it waaay better than the REAL VICTIMS OF OPPRESSION who mostly consist of white straight males of middle class origin.
Sadly, I just know some MRM perma-virgin is going to take all that hyperbole literally and offer you a totally not homoerotic bro-job in congratulations.

canadamus_prime said:
That is what's known as a logical fallacy. I can be anti-rape without supporting feminism, esp. extremist feminism.
Saying that you support gender equality and sexual autonomy but you don't support feminism is like saying that you don't eat meat but think that being a vegetarian is stupid.
I support gender equality, I don't support a group of people that don't recognize M2F Transfolk as women. Most don't, sadly.

Until feminist get their act together and accept that, seriously, fuck that noise.
I contest that notion that there is an idea that the majority of feminists do not support M2F Transfolk. I do not know where you get that idea unless you are referring to thoughts held by an older wave of feminists which is pretty much gone and irrelevant by today's standards. Which reminds me of a very important thing about Feminism is that its not something set in stone, its an ever evolving school of thought.
Very possible. It's been a while since I did research on that bit. Quick google search though, I can still see articles being written on the subject of Feminism shedding it's transphobia.

Heres one, 2011, still I see others written as recent as 2013: http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2011/09/radical_feminism_transphobia

It's still very much a problem within that movement.
I wouldn't say so as being Trans-phobic is pretty much anti-feminist. Quite honestly in all my readings on feminism I have never encountered trans-phobia much beyond a reference to outdated lines of thinking.
BreakfastMan said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
I support gender equality, I don't support a group of people that don't recognize M2F Transfolk as women. Most don't, sadly.

Until feminist get their act together and accept that, seriously, fuck that noise.
Feminism is not a monolith and not all feminists are Andrea Dworkin types. You might want to look up a little something called "The Third Wave" and get some knowledge on the movement before criticizing it as a whole.
Cause clearly if you guys never encountered it, it's not there.

this is admittedly probably a strawman: "America isn't a racist country anymore because we have a black president" doesn't make it so. A black person would likely disagree.

Part of being apart of the movement is criticizing the whole. Third wave isn't doing enough about it's transphobia.


New member
Sep 15, 2010
dragonswarrior said:
Okay!! Taking it from the top!!
Oh gods, thank you! You did this so I don't have to. You are awesome. I agree with pretty much everything you said... except for two little things.

dragonswarrior said:
#5- People should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and if it isn't harming anyone else, they should have nothing but support and acceptance. Where feminism comes in to this, is that women's bodies are FAR more controlled by the patriarchal male dominated society then men's bodies are. If a woman wants to grow out her armpit hair, the "positive" reactions she gets are still basically people telling her she shouldn't have done it, or that her first concern should be how men will react to it. And that's wrong. That's really really wrong. Especially when you realize that men can do whatever the fuck they want with their armpit hair, and society doesn't care.
I agree with your analysis here, but I am firmly in the anti-body hair camp. As a woman, I shave my legs, armpits, and sexy region. However, rather than lifting social restrictions on women, I think we should impose social restrictions on men. Male armpit hair is NASTY. Same for pubic hair. Men who shave their privates and armpits are WAY sexier than their hairy counterparts. The same goes for back hair. Chest hair is okay though as it is aesthetically pleasing.

dragonswarrior said:
#8- Yep!! They totally are!! See... Here is the thing. Male bodies aren't objectified when artistically nude because we live in a society that does not objectify men. Female bodies are still objectified, even when it is clearly art, simply because of the society we live in. It's impossible not to objectify them more than the men. Because women are objectified. They are treated as objects and commodities by society. AND THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. AND THE ONLY WAY IT WILL CHANGE IS IF PEOPLE ARE FEMINISTS. I would like to see the day when male and female bodies can be in the nude without any objectification going on at all.
Eh... I hear what you're saying, and I've heard the argument before, but I just can't buy into this one. You can't tell me that Michelangelo's David doesn't objectify the male form in a sexual fashion. And not all nudes objectify. I had a long discussion with an Art History Professor once about Nude vs Naked. Nudes lack clothing, but don't care or seem to notice. You have both male and female nudes. On the other hand, you also have Naked. A character in a piece of artwork is naked if he or she is without clothing and knows it. Any statue or painting of a woman covering herself qualifies. Naked artwork is about male gaze, and specifically objectifies the woman. That sort of artwork seeks to tantalize a male viewer, and is basically porn in sculpture or painting form. There are very few naked male artworks, but some exist.

So Naked = male gaze, shame, and fear. Objectifies the subject and is anti-feminist.
Whereas Nude = a piece of artwork that features the beauty of the human body without judgement. Does not objectify the subject and, if not pro-feminist, is at least neutral. Also treats both genders equally.

Again, this is paraphrased from a conversation I had with a co-worker in the Art History department (about a painting of a nude woman I have on the wall).

So yeah, thanks again for saying all that stuff. I agreed with your analysis of everything and hope that people stop saying that the pictures make no sense. Even the ones that I disagreed with still made sense in context, as you pointed out.


New member
Mar 12, 2009
So the entirety of the female perception of themselves is caused by men. And everything me and my friends have ever laughed about regarding female body hair and street harassment of women is wrong and perpetuating a culture that destroys that breaks the female spirit. I'm sorry but no that's not sexism and a woman doesn't contribute to sexism by liking what she likes, the feminist movement really thinks very little of women in my opinion if they think they can so easily be brain washed.


New member
Mar 13, 2010
WhoNeedsFeminism.org said:
Identify yourself as a feminist today and many people will immediately assume you are man-hating, bra-burning, whiny liberal. Perhaps a certain charming radio talk show host will label you as a ?Feminazi? or ?slut.? Even among more moderate crowds, feminism is still seen as too radical, too uncomfortable, or simply unnecessary. Feminism is both misunderstood and denigrated regularly on a broad societal scale.

[WhoNeedsFeminism.org] has decided not to release a single, ?official? definition of feminism. The goal of our project is to decrease negative associations with the word that would keep anyone from identifying with the movement. However, we encourage you all to keep defining it yourselves? you have given better answers than we could have ever imagined!
That seems like a horrible M.O. If you want to strike out and reaffirm the positive reputation and intent of a political philosophy, letting the unwashed masses throwing their post-it notes into a big hat and using that collective noise to demonstrate value of a movement seems... naively hopeful or, less generously, DOOMED.

I'd sorta like to be wrong, but honestly, can anyone here genuinely attest to being genuinely edified or helped by coming into contact with this conversation or image blog? That's not rhetorical, or judgmental - I just really want to know if there's anything to this that's helping anyone..?


New member
Nov 1, 2007
BreakfastMan said:
Well, this thread is going to go to crap faster than I can snap my fingers. And I can snap my fingers pretty damn fast.

OT: Most are valid, but there are a few I disagree with. Not much more to say than that... Also, obligatory "not all feminists are second-wave, Andrea Dworkin-type people", because I know someone is going to try to straw-man feminists sometime soon.
Is it possible to snap your fingers slowly?


New member
Mar 24, 2010
I don't need feminism what I need is egalitarianism or rather what I think we all need. See my problem with feminism or rather how some promote the feminist mantra is that, hey women are the superior gender bow down and worship us.


New member
Mar 22, 2011
Dijkstra said:
DevilWithaHalo said:
Your feelings... are your fucking problem. What he wants, and what you want, are universal social acceptance. This will never happen; it *cannot* happen in a free and democratic society. I whole heartedly reject feminism as an ideology that promotes thought control through emotional manipulation.
Emotional manipulation? So "You can't have universal social acceptance! But I don't want anyone to make me feel bad, that's the worst thing ever. It's mind control to make me feel bad". Making you feel bad isn't thought control. That's pretty much on the level of complaining that people don't have the free speech to criticize you. It's a hilariously self-centered view where you want support for anything you might do or think, can't have them emotionally manipulate you with criticism and shunning or whatever the hell.
I don't understand this, because I think you may have misunderstood me. The "quotes" are a misconstrued ad-lib that portrays either a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my actual statement.

My point was that I disagree with the notion that my opinion can (or should) be controlled or regulated because of it's offensive nature toward those that disagree with it. In other words; "I may not agree with what you say sir; but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Your later comment appears to be applicable to both me from the potential misunderstanding and toward the picture/idea on which it was based. So... I find you confusing and request clarification.


New member
Feb 3, 2010
Bara_no_Hime said:
Even the ones that I disagreed with still made sense in context, as you pointed out.
There is no context for #2, except context that we choose to invent for it.

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
Luna said:
Geo Da Sponge said:
...Seriously? Alright, time to bust out the image. I am busting out the image now.

The image has been bust out now.

I mean, just... What's the point? The purpose of this thread is literally point and laugh at people who think differently to you? About feminism of all things? Yeah, that'll end well.

They deserve to be laughed at for generally being foolish.
Maybe you should actually talk to these people, asking questions about their stated beliefs and why they believe them before you laugh at them. Chances are their beliefs can't be neatly summarised on a little card like that; while it may be foolish of them to try and communicate it through that, it doesn't make them "generally foolish".

Basically, stop acting like you know about someone just because of one thing they wrote. No discussion is being helped by pointing and laughing at someone you disagree with. I mean, the thread is now going in useful directions (albeit in the same clusterfuck as always), but just gathering around to laugh at people's poorly explained beliefs? Nah, I don't see the point. Just seems small minded to me, to mock someone's views without actually discussing it with them.


New member
Nov 1, 2011
In response to the OP's photos:

#1: What. The actual. Fuck. Leave it in the bedroom, asshole. Call me a prude or whatever, but I guarantee you, women would be better off if we as a society practiced discretion.
#2: Your University is named after a man because it was founded by a man. Idiot.
#3: By that logic, rape would be the highest form of flattery.
#4: Rape culture is a misnomer, porn culture is more appropriate for our society. http://www.caintv.com/porn-fueled-young-men-are-dest
#5:Another symptom of porn culture
#7: This is possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen. I seriously laughed my head off for at least a minute. this woman is not a victim of patriarchy or porn culture, she's just stupid. Gender-nonspecific stupid. Good luck getting a job, stupid. Have fun paying off those student loans.
#8: But the Sistine Chapel ceiling and Michelangelo's David are ok, right? Because nude art can't be beautifully humanistic if the subject lacks a y chromosome.


New member
Jul 10, 2009
FreedomofInformation said:
Loonyyy said:
This will end well...Not.

Yes, there are idiot feminists, idiot Liberals, idiot Republicans, idiot MRAs, idiots everywhere. Pointing and laughing at some from a select group seems troublingly closed-minded at best.
The difference is that feminists have free reign to inflict their nonsense on the rest of us through the government, universities,family courts and so on while a troll on reddit saying they think women should stay in the kitchen is just that.
Yes. The people in those photos have so much power in the government. I look at them, and they just scream "Government Power". These people are identical to the reddit users. Heck, they probably are reddit users. They've just been collected up by 4chan for a dump.

You think these are part of some feminist government conspiricy? Really? Words... escape me. There's no description of this post I can honestly give within the CoC for the site, so I'm going to leave it at that. Really

Quadocky said:
We are not all with out foibles. Though I wish to point out that there is a much larger degree of willful ignorance on the part of reactionaries/'right wingers' MRAs and the like. Something that more 'Liberal' ideas are not prone too given they are predisposed to the evolution of thought rather than outright reactions based upon selfishness and fear.
I'd tend to agree, but if someone took opinions just based on their poor conception or expression, to target for ridicule, even from those movements, I'd feel a little disturbed. It's easy to move from depicting the worst of a group, to making people think the worst of that group.
Basically, its not something that is even on each side.
Totally true, and I'm sure that collecting a series of posts like this would be even easier on an MRA subreddit or the like. It'd still be a bad generalisation.

Most of the divisiveness and ignorance almost always stems from the reactionaries. But for some reason, even pointing this out will cause reactionaries to react divisively. Thus, I am generally of the belief they do not really care about anything but themselves.

Zipa said:

I will let the amazing atheist take this one.

tl;dr version though, if people truly want equality then you should be a equalist.
I'd warn you to be careful with that video. TJ's been shown more than once to be talking out of his ass about feminism, especially since his videos on feminism are typically based on discussions around "The Divine Femitheist", and other completely crazy people, rather than any good arguments. He looks for choice quotes from fools (Like the one at the start of the video), to dismiss everyone involved. He also had the memorable occassion where he broke down on reddit, and said that he was glad a rape victim got raped, would give a medal to her rapist, and basically acted like a childish piece of shit. He tried making a video about these interactions, and was summarily cut to pieces, and took down his whinging video. I can't remember the entire thing, but it's pretty commonly known. It was blogged about by pretty much everyone bar himself, who decided to try to pretend it never happened. Yeah. Not the person anyone should cite in these discussions. He's a complete piece of shit, with basically no redeeming qualities.

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Feb 18, 2010
United Kingdom
jackdeesface said:
I think you're looking at how "rape" is defined here, rather than necessarily how "rape culture" is defined.

Rape is pretty black and white, under most legal definitions. If you penetrate an adult and you do not believe they have consented, then you are guilty. If you did believe that they consented, you are not guilty because there was no intent to commit an offence. Some jurisdictions (such as my country) will also find you guilty if your belief was unreasonable or based on inadequate information, but yeah. That's still pretty clear cut. I'll leave that to you to figure out where your own scenarios fit on that scale.

The metrics we use in rape victimization are also pretty black and white, although you do have to be critical and ask specific questions because often people will not feel that they have been raped even while a describing a situation in which they were clearly fucked against their own will. Many people still have a very flawed idea of what rape is or looks like. This is called "rape myth acceptance" and it's a whole separate problem and one which is very relevant in tackling the actual prevalence of rape.

But that's the thing. The purpose of theorizing a "rape culture" is not to suggest that the definition of rape should be expanded, the purpose is to explain why rape.. the thing we already think of as rape, manifests in the way it does in our culture at all. It's obvious at a cursory glance that many women do like their partners to take control in the bedroom, the question is why? Why do so many women want to be fucked in a way which accords their partner some kind of control over them in the first place? It's clearly not some "natural" fact of women, because it certainly doesn't apply to all women, and yet it's completely ubiquitous in our culture. Pretty much whenever our society talks about sex, or depicts sex, or fantasizes about sex we assume this kind of relationship in which the man is domineering, aggressive or even violent and the women is passive and powerless before him. Why? Why has this become the only acceptable configuration of human sexual fantasies? Could it possibly have something to do with the historical distribution of wider social power between men and women?

...and, this is where I start to lose patience with the concept, because I don't actually agree with what I just said. I do think there are socially sanctioned alternatives to "normal" sexual conduct, otherwise you could dismiss all this with a simple wave of the hand and a "but that's how things are". But nonetheless there's still a grain of truth in this idea and it's worth thinking about.


New member
Nov 2, 2010
BreakfastMan said:
rbstewart7263 said:
But its not misinformation.
Yes, it is. When many people believe that feminists are all angry, 2nd wave, sex-negative types who take the words in "Pornography: Men Possessing Women" as law when most are nothing like that, there is a severe problem of misinformation. It would be like if people decided to judge all of Christianity based on stupid Evangelicals, and is just as intellectually dishonest. I would wager that most people who have had a bad experience with feminism (like encountering those angry lady college grads you mentioned) have met many more feminists than they realize. :\
But those second wavers were real thats why its a negative connotation. No one made that up. Until there are more intelectually honest feminists than there are intellectually dishonest ones the stereotype wont go away.

although it does stand to reason that it only takes one to make a negative opinion and 10 to make a positive one.