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.WaitWHAT said:If it makes you feel any better, the boys that don't stop doing that never get laid.
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...
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:Please stop. Thats not even making sense.
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:Wanting to change opinions on something isnt thought control.
Care to wager on that? I?ll give you the opportunity to alter this to ?any sane and reasonable person?.BiscuitTrouser said:It isnt a way anyone wants.
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 dont know how you honestly typed that out and believed it.
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 creationism out of schools. Is it "Thought control?" to put forward reasonable arguments against it to change peoples minds?
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:I want gay marriage to be legal. Again is it the same?
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:From my definition of Feminism how you solve the problem and change peoples minds is this:
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:"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?
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:Is there really a 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:Doesnt it feel weird to dislike or dirride something just because society says so and for no other logical reason?
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: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"
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:Ask questions. Challenge peoples viewpoints. Use reasoned arguments.
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: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?""
I take it you are unfamiliar with the colloquialism; ?Hope for the best but prepare for the worst??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 would love to see both, but they are few and far between amongst ?patriarchy? and ?rape culture?.BiscuitTrouser said:How about reasoned dialogue and arguments?
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.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.
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.
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:We are dropping our ridiculous standards on what is and isnt taboo.
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 think we CAN reach a "Better" point even though i agree that total universal acceptance is impossible i still think we can make progress.
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: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.
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:My viewpoint is basically a dislike if mindless irrational tradition in ALL forms. "Feminism" is just a smaller part of that.
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: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?
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: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.
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).BiscuitTrouser said:My point is that progress was made on making harmless things acceptable before WITHOUT thought control. Why cant we do that now?
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.