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

Recommended Videos

Spearmaster

New member
Mar 10, 2010
378
0
0
Does everyone need social acceptance for everything they do any more? I was raised to believe that people are free to do what they wish as long as it doesn't trample the rights of others. I can do what I want and people are free to like it, not like it or not care at all. Why do groups feel they need to change the whole of society so people accept everything they do with open arms?

This goes out to all groups out there. Do what you do and I will either like it, not like it or not care and you cant change that, if people don't like you for it but nobody is trying to stop you from doing it STFU and deal with it.

All the pictures from the OP seem like whines about their own social hang-ups not about a lack of freedom to do it so to me its invalid.

Its not the duty or responsibility of society to make people feel better about themselves. I wish these threads would end.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,460
0
0
BoneDaddy_SK said:
I try my damnedest to have an informed opinion about a subject before I talk about it. Unfortunately, this is the internet. Most of the people who talk about feminism, especially those who speak negatively about it, don't know shit about it. Because when you're online, being an intellectual makes you gay. The same goes for having faith in anything or having emotions.

So... you seriously just said that "feminism" as a title is the exact same thing as "white supremacist?" And you want me to take your opinion seriously?

That is quite possibly the stupidest excuse to dismiss feminism that I've ever heard. Ever.
I don't like to break up quotes, so I'm just going to answer like this. What I said is that any title with an history or a perceived notion will close off minds. I listed a few, I believe three. First, the term I typed out specifically was 'White Power'. And there was a reason for that.

I've met people who believed in White Power but did not hate other races. Well, they said as much. Given the fact that they were introduced to me and we talked several times before telling me they believed in the White Power movement, I tend to give some credence to their ideals while trying not to be a damn fool. That's always a tight rope, but try to keep an open mind and all.

I can get into whether I hundred percent believe them or not, but I'll move away from the point because I can believe there is a group of whites who believe in White Pride/Power and not hate others. But the term White Power or Pride might make others think that they are just racist. Hell, I blatantly said White Power and then said that they could not be racist, and you just summed up all my thoughts as equating Feminism as White Supremacist. Which would be weird, as I also mention Black Militants in the same Paragraph. Before White Power, might I add.

To me, it seems, you read a hot button term and then reacted. Which was kind of my point to begin with.

And to the last part... Not once in any of my posts did I ever say dismiss feminism. Ever. It never came close. I've been saying to dismiss labels and try to reach other others like human beings, not champions to a cause. There's really nothing other to say about that.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
I genuinely thought that the pictures in the OP were a joke. You know, like "Cut for Bieber" or something.
 

Kurt Cristal

New member
Mar 31, 2010
438
0
0
LostGryphon said:
I genuinely thought that the pictures in the OP were a joke. You know, like "Cut for Bieber" or something.
Me too, I was expecting joke pictures but OP did not deliver. @OP, you got these from 4chan eh? Good, stay there.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,383
0
0
Although I think people have a right to their own opinions, the pictures are kinda stupid as they name issues that aren't really related to feminism, usually other issues or in some of the pictures no issue at all.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,645
0
0
At first I thought that was all sarcastic then it dawned on me that these idiots are serious. I'll just give a quick play by play.

1. That doesn't have anything to do with feminism, more like fetish/sexuality tolerance. Advertising is like asking for recognition of foot fetish holders.
2. Your point is?
3. This is a feminist issue why? Here I thought lack of harassment was good.
4. Thats just adorable.
5. Because women don't have standards of beauty to apply to men at all.
6. See above.
7. Ooooh, a liberal arts degree that doesn't let you do anything except write a book or teach that subject. WHEEE.
8. Is Michalangelo's David bad for men too? I though it was pretty impressive myself.

There is feminism and useless complaining. This is the latter.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
I like how this thread is mostly people saying "oh man, this is gonna get nasty"
thats not relevant, nor is it adding to the discussion on the subject. I don't know that all of these are entirely invalid points. but I'm off topic now

OT *points and laughs*
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,645
0
0
boots said:
Shock and Awe said:
5. Because women don't have standards of beauty to apply to men at all.
Tell me, do people like you actually give a flying fuck about the unfair standards of beauty applied to men, or do you just wheel this out whenever you want to derail any discussion of the unfair standards of beauty applied to women?

See also: people who suddenly really care about men getting raped ... but only when someone tries to talk about women getting raped.
No I don't. However I do care about people complaining about how things are so hard for them while totally ignoring the other side of it. I'd be one hell of a hypocrite for pretending to be outraged about it because I and other men apply standards of beauty to women, and women do the same to men. Its derailment as far as pointing out how ridiculous an argument can be is in any discussion. If you ask me most complaints about objectification are usually overblown/ridiculous and are claimed by a minority of women.

Oh, and you didn't get anything under B so that most certainly not a bingo.
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
About the last one - the nude models in art - as someone who took a short life drawing class and had to draw both fat and skinny women, drawing the fatties was MUCH more fun and always ended up looking better than the skinny girls. In fact, my favourite artistic nude photograph was a fat chick sitting on a rocky breakwater with a cityscape in the background. The hard, dark, angular rocks/skyscrapers had an amazing contrast with the soft, light, round skin of the woman. As an artistic piece it would have been much weaker if the model was a skinny chick. I didn't objectify those women (probably because I'm not particularly attracted to overweight women) and really appreciated what their body lent to the art.

I think the girl must be referring to bad art - like the people that just take a photo of a girl with her legs spread and post it to deviantART with the title "Cum inside" or something, and categorise it as "artistic nude". When it's bad nude art the only value it has is pornography, so it's no surprise people objectify the models. When the artist actually uses the model in creating the art I find myself far less likely to objectify the model - even if she has a smokin' bod.
 

bounty90

New member
Oct 1, 2012
16
0
0
evilthecat said:
Giftfromme said:
You know what I like to laugh at?

People who have never actually read or learned about feminism trying to laugh at people who have. It's like watching a dog try to walk on its hind legs.

Giftfromme said:
#1 uhhh feminism lets you achieve that how??
I'll give you one clue, see if you can work it out.

Feminism.
Feminization.

They have the same prefix. Why?

Giftfromme said:
#2 ummm you're not getting harassed and that makes you feel unattractive? Very few people actually think this way and subscribing to feminism won't change that opinion of yourself.
Would it have been easier if she had written it in pink?

Anyone who didn't get that one should be fucking embarrassed.

Giftfromme said:
#3 well that shit makes no sense at all. Because I don't subscribe to feminism, I'm for rape? lol what
Read the sign one more time. There's a very big clue in the way it is phrased.

Giftfromme said:
#4 lol...again that's a personal confidence thing
No it's not.

Did you actually read the card?

Giftfromme said:
#5 a self confidence thing, nothing that an outside power will change for you. You need to do it yourself
Again, go back and read the card and tell me in what way anything you've said is relevant.

Giftfromme said:
#6 Cool story!
You know what's funny? People who justify their own ignorance by claiming that the knowledge in question isn't important.

A cursory knowledge of gender studies would at least help you understand these cards before you embarrassed yourself on a public forum.

Giftfromme said:
#7 lol that don't make sense, but ok!
Really, this is too difficult for you? It's a pretty simple point.. if there's any criticism which can be made of it it's that it's actually too simple.
Whoah acting smug and superior without explaining his point's, honestly that post was a disgrace to humanity.
 

bounty90

New member
Oct 1, 2012
16
0
0
theultimateend said:
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?
That post made me laugh
 

OuroborosChoked

New member
Aug 20, 2008
558
0
0
Arqus_Zed said:
Really? Women actually have preferences concerning something as mundane as a foreskin? Huh... How utterly trivial.

Anyway, where were we? Right. First, female circumcision is not exclusive to third world countries - it even happens here in Belgium. Sure, it's done by immigrants to immigrants, but it is still something done within the boundaries of a first world country!
Way to undercut your own point. You're admitting it's not a problem of your culture, but of the culture of those who immigrate to your country. Simple solution: pass a law banning the practice. While you're at it, ban all genital mutilation and see how far you can go with banning male circumcision before the religious segments of the population start raising specters of the Holocaust.

Second, saying that male circumcision is on par with female circumcision?
No, I'm not... but thanks for putting words in my mouth. What I was actually saying is that in YOUR OWN culture, male genital mutilation is considered normal... yet you're raising a stink over some other culture's norms. THAT is pretty fucked up: that you view men in your own culture as so entirely insignificant that you have to look to another culture to find things to get pissed about before fixing the problems within your own metaphorical house.

Yes, female genital mutilation sucks. It's utterly horrible and cruel. But how about setting aside the white world's burden for two seconds to show compassion for your own sons and husbands?

That said, I am not a fan of infant circumcisions with males either.
But not enough to actually do something about it...

boots said:
Pfft! "One girl"? Are you serious?

Do me a favour. I know that the number of girls on The Escapist is kind of limited (wonder why), but try polling them to see how many *expect* the guy to pay when they go on dates.
I was referring to the example in front of me. I did not say you were the ONLY one ever, merely the only one admitting to it *right here*.

Also:
1. "Wonder why" - way to not-so-subtly accuse everyone here of sexism. I, for one, do not appreciate that kind of attitude, nor the insult.
2. The Escapist isn't the entire world. If you believe it is, you are living under a metaphorical rock. You will find many of the girls who happen to be the most vocal on the subject do not agree with you. Go check YouTube, if you don't believe me... read women's magazines, watch daytime talk shows. Most girls still expect if not DEMAND that the man pay and will trash and shame a man who doesn't.

boots said:
Tell me, do people like you actually give a flying fuck about the unfair standards of beauty applied to men, or do you just wheel this out whenever you want to derail any discussion of the unfair standards of beauty applied to women?

See also: people who suddenly really care about men getting raped ... but only when someone tries to talk about women getting raped.
Yes, because women are uniquely victims of everything... like violence (no, wait... that's mostly men even though women get all of the attention and "end violence" campaigns... can't use that, either). Instead of framing problems as they impact just one group of people, how about we focus on getting rid of problems ENTIRELY?

I think that's really what you're missing when people do this: some people aren't sexists and actually care about ALL people... not just their own kind.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
bounty90 said:
Whoah acting smug and superior without explaining his point's, honestly that post was a disgrace to humanity.
Woah, acting like a hypocrite without reading the last few pages!

It's not my responsibility to educate anyone, particularly if noone's going to bother to read any actual explanations. The original post in this thread was worth exactly the amount of time I gave it, subsequent posts have been worth more, hence why I have given them more.

If you haven't ever bothered to learn about something, I don't have to explain to you why your thinking regarding it is wrong. Unless you want to pay me to teach you, that's not my job and its not your right. People should do some fucking work before they post this shit, that was the point, and it stands whether you consider my points about "feminism" to be right or wrong.

I don't understand economics.. I've never studied it or read much about it. If I made a spectacularly arrogant post in which I invited everyone to laugh because people who support the ideas of the Chicago school say things which I think sound dumb, I'd be opening myself to ridicule on the basis that I didn't know what I was talking about. One would think I'd be aware of that before trying to create such a topic.
 

OuroborosChoked

New member
Aug 20, 2008
558
0
0
boots said:
You claim that the majority of women still expect men to pay, which is a stupidly bold claim that you choose to back up with ... a few Youtube videos and some hypothetical articles that you supposedly found in a women's magazine (because Glamour and Cosmo are really known for their progressive views on standards of masculinity and femininity).
Oh, are we playing your silly bingo game now? Because I think that statement just got me a few spaces...

I guarantee that for every woman you find claiming that men should still have to pay for dates, I could find one or two who say that they shouldn't have to. I actually don't think I know any women IRL who still expect their date to pay for everything - they all either go dutch or take turns to pay.
You know, people say they believe a lot of things. I'd take you up on your poll idea if - and only if - there was another question paired up with it: who paid for your past three dates?

Regardless, this is a godawful argument against feminism (your "because EQUALITY" snark attempt is just sort of embarrassing for this reason), since one of the most fundamental aspects of feminism is challenging traditional gender roles *including* the notion that the man should be the one to pay for the dates.
That's because it's not an argument against Feminism. It's an argument against hypocracy. Specifically...

Of the women you can allegedly find who argue in favour of this chivalry nonsense, how many are feminists?
1. "Allegedly" - I can get you half a dozen videos right now from YouTube. *I* guarantee YOU that they're the first search results that come up, too.
2. I dare say most of them believe they are, inasmuch as Feminism has been defined for them as "equality for women".

If you're really disgruntled about men having to pay for everything on a date ... why not try a bit of feminism on for size?
I have tried it on. Sexism doesn't suit me. I prefer to concern myself with the rights issues that impact all of us... not just how women feel when an ugly man looks at her...
 

Giftfromme

New member
Nov 3, 2011
552
0
0
evilthecat said:
Giftfromme said:
It's all well and good for acceptance, but what difference does it make to the guy who wants to be banged by his girlfriend with a strap on? There are differences in our genders, studies have shown that guys and girls learn differently.
I'm confused about what you're saying here, and I'm not sure if you're misusing the word "gender" or not. Remember, "Sex" refers to the anatomical, endocrinal and genetic differences between people which make them male and female. "Gender" refers to the way in which these male and female bodies are socially differentiated from each other.

Assuming you actually meant to say "gender" then yeah, countless studies have provided overwhelming evidence of that, to the point that it's a common sense assumption accessible via a cursory glance at our society. That's actually what I've been saying all along.

If you meant to say "sex", then no. There isn't very much evidence. A handful of studies does not "prove" anything just by getting published, they must be repeatable (anyone, regardless of prior belief, must be able to come to the same result), logically consistent (any original theory must be the product of analysis) and it must eliminate alternative explanations. Sexual difference theories regarding cognitive functioning have never been able to do any of these things.

In truth, we actually don't know how different the sexes are from one another in their cognitive functioning, but given that even the most hardline study in this area is only asserting a generalization, the logic answer is "not very". Moreover, once you put together how human sex actually develops it becomes a pretty pointless question, there isn't a magic binary switch which gives you a magically different brain and physical appearance, it's all regulated by differences (sometimes very subtle differences) in the production of androgenic hormones. What we're looking for when we study "sex differences" is actually the effects of those hormones, which vary enormously between individuals anyway. In short, we all learn differently and we all think differently. A crude generalization is no basis for organizing our society.

Giftfromme said:
Yes that opinion is formed and informed by societal standards, but some things will always be weird or deviant to us.
And if he had said "I'm tired of feeling weird for enjoying my girlfriend's strap on" that would be highly relevant. However, he didn't. He said "I'm tired of feeling unmanly". This isn't an issue of what's generally "weird", it's not remotely weird for women to want to be anally penetrated despite the fact that the physical rewards for them are usually close to non-existent.

The reason why its "unmanly" to enjoy receptive anal sex is not because men are just different and are "programmed" to hate it. In fact, anatomical sexual differences mean that receptive anal sex can be far more pleasurable for us than it can ever be for women, and yet it is highly taboo in many societies is because it is seen as a feminine position.

And, going back to my very original post to you.. why is that such a bad thing?

Giftfromme said:
So there is simply no point in waiting for that. His sex life doesn't need to be political and can be 100% private.
Just like everyone else's sexuality is completely private??

Except it's not, is it? We are saturated with very public sexuality all the time, generally very boring and normative sexuality which may be why it's so hard to notice. Perhaps it's become so normal that you don't register it as sexuality any more, but it is nonetheless. Everything from advertisements to the basic conversations you have with people will include references which position their sexuality as normal or abnormal, or which clues about whether their sexual behavior is manly or unmanly or feminine or unfeminine or gay or straight or whatever.

Giftfromme said:
How many people actually think that a girl feels attractive if she is ogled in the street or whatever?
Many. That's why people still do it.

You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive.

If you stare at someone, fine. It happens. But if you happen to make eye contact and you don't get a smile or something, then you break off. This isn't even etiquette, it's basic body language. If you make eye contact with a gorilla and don't break it then you're going to get your arms ripped off because it's an aggressive gesture. If you keep staring at someone who has not given you a positive reaction, if you stare at them as if they're an object without displaying any regard for their feelings, it's no better than chasing someone down the street when they've rejected you telling them you'll leave them alone if they'll give you a handjob.

This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid.

How many guys? Far fewer than 30 years ago. Why is that? I'll give you a clue, it begins with an 'F'.

Giftfromme said:
Men are typically the ones who will "hunt" for a girl, or is generally the one who initiates contact with a girl. Our brains formed on the savannah (for roughly 2 million years, known as the Pleistocene period) and we haven't been out of it long enough for deeply ingrained values and attitudes to change.
Again, this is pure supposition.

Anyone can take a present day social trend and claim it's something humans have evolved to do. It doesn't make it accurate. Observe:

Women like pink because they evolved to find berries in the undergrowth and became very sensitive to red-spectrum colors.

This one is actually, patently untrue (which hasn't stopped people trying to claim it). It's only in the last hundred and fifty years or so in one particular society that pink has been considered a feminine colour. You cannot extrapolate evolutionary trends from social trends without eliminating alternative explanations.

There is no Flintstonian constant, particularly since for the past few thousand years marriage and sex has been explicitly about political kinship ties and the pursuit of sexual pleasure has generally been entirely secondary. Most of these ideas about the most "naturally" attractive female body shapes are Victorian preoccupations, there's no real evidence for them prior to that.

Giftfromme said:
If the urges are strong enough in a man and he rapes a woman, he will use any excuse to justify it, and education cannot fix that. These urges are not trivial, this is your very DNA pushing you get pass on your genes by getting laid.
Science aside, before you go down this road, I want you to sit and think about the social implications of what you are saying for a minute.

I'm assuming we're both male. If what you just said was true, and if it was accepted to be true, what would the logical solution be? How that would solution impact on people like you and me?

Giftfromme said:
I've seen some decidedly unattractive guys who are good with woman, but they could have easily given up.
Do you really think none of the women in those pictures could get laid if they wanted to? Do you think they couldn't score way out of their league if they wanted to? You're assuming randomly that they're subject to exactly the same situation as their male counterparts, that "success" means the same thing to them and thus all they need to achieve that "success" is a little self-confidence.

They clearly are self-confident to some degree. They've posted pictures of themselves online. One is showing us her armpit hair, the other has stated that she "loves her body". I don't understand how you get from this to "they need more confidence". Why, so they can get men to have sex with them? You're assuming that's in any way difficult, or that it's what they're looking for.

Giftfromme said:
No I don't think my arguments are original. Of course others have them. That's the point. If I was the only, I might think something is wrong with me.
Bingo.

Do you get why we need feminism yet?
Nah you have missed the boat on many parts.

"You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive."

Utter nonsense. I have real world experience here, that's where I'm talking from. I'm guessing you're talking from experience of reading magazines and how they tell you someone should act. Many, many of these are self-serving and are just incorrect. What is aggressive to one girl may not be to another. What does insensitive behaviour mean? It's meaningless when applied in broad strokes. There is absolutely no way to tell how a particular girl will react to a certain type of advance. You can get cues but you could also be misreading cues. I have done many things when approaching girls that you would consider "aggressive" or "insensitive" and these experiences have turned out 100% fine. I've tried these same tactics on other girls and been turned down. Nothing I can do to predict such reactions. What is defined as aggressive changes from each person to the next. There are many, many shades in there. Men practice approaches all along the scale and it is after the fact that it is decided whether or not the approach or whatever was too aggressive etc.
You look at a girl and she doesn't keep eye contact? She could be shy you know. Please don't bring up these examples in a condescending manner when you don't know what you're talking about. Again, I've tried to hold eye contact with a chick, she dropped her eyes, I approached her and it was fine. Girls can be shy too. Sometimes little to nothing about the nature of a girl can be determined beforehand. Hence guys try many, many strategies. I do indeed agree that some are wrong, especially when coming from a place of ego, but many times it's just the type of man that does it, and not his approach.


"This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid."
Completely subjective as already explained. There is no such thing as "behaving properly" as I will behave differently around my friends then others. I will also behave differently around different groups of strangers. When you say how woman will respond to "aggression", it could be that in fact one woman will accept a guys advance that you see as "aggressive".

People will always negotiate what is normal, abnormal etc regarding sexual positions and this will inevitably involve gender roles. But what is the point of enforcing equality in this arena? You can't nor should you enforce people change their opinions on this arena. These opinions are formed over centuries and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand or considered irrelevant. Why would everything be considered sexually equal? People feel weird for many fetishes, including ones where the man is submissive and they continue to do them, despite what others feel about it. If we somehow had complete gender equality regarding sex, then nothing would be considered deviant or weird. Is that a realistic hope? Of course not. Who cares if he is tired of how society feels about his sexual act. You can negotiate gender roles and relationships over the course of a larger society, but you should never serve to neutralize these. That would defeat the ongoing negotiation in society on gender roles etc. You can't nor should you aim to enforce what people perceive as gender roles, male, female etc. These come with a long history and are not trivial or should be discarded. So currently yes, it is considered unmanly to take it in the ass with a dildo from your girlfriend. This did not just come out on its own one day and people felt this way. There's a hell of a lot of history behind it, and you can't just dismiss that history. Whether or not you feel the history is right (like woman traditionally who were and are still seen as submissive) is a value judgement on your part (and others who judge history), but many people felt they were right at the time to perpetuate these beliefs. Some of these have carried on into the present day and this means most people would think its unmanly to take it in the ass by a dildo. You have to ask yourself why this is. It's not just men who decide social values, it's women too. You might find that many woman would agree that the guy is unmanly. You will find that many woman will hold to gender roles too, whether traditional ones or new age ones. They will say they want a man who makes the moves, leads etc. There is little place in this view for a man who takes it in the ass by a dildo. These views can't just be invalidated out of hand and attempting to enforce equality from this stance is just silly.

Yes we are bombarded with images of what a normal sex life etc is. But these are done by both genders. We have to form our own opinions (or just go along with everything if that's what you want to do) in the face of a hell a lot of advertising telling us how to live. You have to decide which ones, if any, you adopt and there is little use in in wanting acceptance in every area you choose. Polygamy is generally not considered acceptable. And yet many people have engaged in it throughout history and continue to do so today. Do these people care about equality or acceptance? It could indeed be seen as sexist. But you don't see these men complaining about how what they're doing is viewed as in the larger society. The man living with two women might see it as his right to do so and be offended by your opinion that it's sexist. You cannot be guaranteed acceptance for every life choice you make. Your view and his view on what gender equality is will be different. Who is correct?

When we talk about evolutionary history, you need to understand that it's mostly institutions that we have put a blanket over our age-old ways that stops us from acting like we used to. We have not been living in cities long enough to evolve to these new standards of living. Never in history has anything closely resembling our cities been part of our day to day lives and we are definitely not accustomed to it as a species. It was only in 2007, that more than 50% of people lives in cities. For the vast majority of human history, the vast majority of people have lives in rural areas. We did not evolve to live in cities and this new mode of living would not be possible without institutions that we have put up over many of our age old behaviours and predispositions. A hell of a lot of our behaviours come from when we were still on the savannah. Want an example? A study was done where people who went to marriage counseling, for both instances, where man felt that his wife's jealousy was ruining their relationship and where the wife felt that the man's jealousy was ruining the relationship.
The researchers pulled aside the person who was the partner of the jealous person and they were asked if they really did cheat on their partner. The vast majority of people said that yes they did. Their partners could not explain their suspicions but had what you might call a "gut instinct" (none had evidence of the cheating) but in most cases they were correct. Surely in our new evolved society, such a trait, behaviour etc (or whatever you call it) that in fact evolved while we were on the savannah should have been wiped out by now? But no it still with us, along with a myriad other behaviours. We have not lived a city life long enough to evolve into it. People still act irrationally and are very violent. We have codes of conduct, we have police, we have the courts, jail etc. to curb this behaviour.

Dunno what else to say about the rape thing. Biological urges are powerful and any amount of mental acrobatics can be done to justify a particular act. A man might look at all the advertising and think that everyone bar him is getting laid. He might then use that as an excuse to get rape if he's desperate enough. Anything could be used as an excuse. Education will hardly stop that from happening. I don't have a solution in this area.

Regarding the last point, yes I choose to hold these opinions. I know many of my opinions only a small minority of people would agree with, but I don't care. If I was literally the only person in the world to hold these opinions, than shit, maybe something is wrong. This guy is not the only guy in the world who likes to get done in the ass by a dildo, but he is in the minority. I certainly don't give a shit about acceptance for my views (some of which I've expressed in my posts) as I feel that they're right. They're definitely in the minority but this doesn't bother me one bit.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
OuroborosChoked said:
1. "Allegedly" - I can get you half a dozen videos right now from YouTube. *I* guarantee YOU that they're the first search results that come up, too.
2. I dare say most of them believe they are, inasmuch as Feminism has been defined for them as "equality for women"
Feminism isn't the same thing as "what women think", it's not even "what all career women think" or "what all activists think".

Just because a woman relies on or uses some feminist ideas in certain areas of her life doesn't mean she's always speaking as the living embodiment of the great feminist collective. You yourself accept certain feminist ideas. It's very hard not to do so. That doesn't mean you're always speaking as a feminist. You don't go to a restaurant and order your meal in a "feminist" way (unless you're doing so in a way designed to eliminate the gendered inequalities in society somehow, and no, I have no idea how that would work). Feminism used to be something you are, nowadays its meaningless to talk of it like that, feminism is something you do. Some people do it more than others, but almost everyone does it. This is why there's no feminist movement any more, because it would be impossible to say where it began or ended.

However, feminism continues to exist in the form of a particular body of theory which is quite specific in its implications and meaning. That theory remains very interesting to those of us who are interested in the functioning of gender norms and how they impact on our lives. Again, feminism is not mind-control. It has been successful purely because it gives people tools to challenge the assumptions of their own lives.

Feminism didn't suddenly show up and everything automatically became better for women. Every step towards equality has been met with hostility and obstacles, and people have personally suffered as a result despite and even because of their feminist convictions. Feminism doesn't fix that, and doesn't claim to. What it does do is to give you the theoretical framework not to passively accept the weird assumptions and unequal treatment which are fostered on you, and to call the world out for being wrong even when every other thing in it disagrees. I can guarantee that you and I would not be able to even be having this conversation about inequality in dating etiquette if feminism had never existed, what reason would we have to even think about it?

Demand it for yourself in personal life. Refuse to accept the alternative. Do what the people in the original post are doing and tell the world what is not acceptable. Feminism already gave you the tools to do that, it never gave any woman in history anything more and look how far they came with it. Don't tell me you can't do the same. The only real question here is how much you want to.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,645
0
0
boots said:
OuroborosChoked said:
boots said:
Tell me, do people like you actually give a flying fuck about the unfair standards of beauty applied to men, or do you just wheel this out whenever you want to derail any discussion of the unfair standards of beauty applied to women?

See also: people who suddenly really care about men getting raped ... but only when someone tries to talk about women getting raped.
Yes, because women are uniquely victims of everything... like violence (no, wait... that's mostly men even though women get all of the attention and "end violence" campaigns... can't use that, either). Instead of framing problems as they impact just one group of people, how about we focus on getting rid of problems ENTIRELY?

I think that's really what you're missing when people do this: some people aren't sexists and actually care about ALL people... not just their own kind.
You want to know why this pisses me off so much? Because of the fantastic irony of it. People will try to start a discussion about women being marginalised, and almost instantly someone will jump in with claims that women have it better off and it's men who have the real problems, and suddenly the conversation becomes all about female-on-male rape/domestic violence, and the unfair standards of beauty for men, and the way that custody courts are unfairly biased against men ... all this despite the fact that - as the previous poster admitted - most of these people actually couldn't give a shit about any of these issues most of the time. If anyone tries to bring the conversation back to injustices and prejudice that affect women, they instantly get shouted down by someone demanding to know why they don't care about men's problems.

And suddenly women become marginalised in a conversation that was originally about the marginalisation of women. It's fucking beautiful.

This is especially common on sites like The Escapist, where female posters are massively outnumbered by male posters.

There's this idiotic, kneejerk assumption that any time someone tries to talk about problems that affect women, they're instantly disregarding men by not mentioning them, even with something like the issue of rape where the vast majority of cases have a female victim and a male perpetrator. Yet it is very, very easy to find feminists discussing the ways in which society's gender roles negatively affect men. People talk about injustices in child custody courts like this is a new thing that feminism invented, as opposed to something that has existed for centuries and which many feminists are actually arguing against [http://www.nomas.org/node/167]. Any discussion of female genital mutilation is immediately derailed into a discussion of circumcision, another issue that many feminists are fundamentally against [http://ecochildsplay.com/2011/07/07/why-circumcision-is-a-feminist-issue/]. And best of all, people talk about chivalry like it was something that feminists invented, as opposed to something that has been around since medieval times and which is in basic ideological conflict with feminism [http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/01/no-chivalry-thanks.html].

No one's saying that you shouldn't talk about issues that affect men. If you really want to do something about them, then do something about them. Even if all you do is start a thread to discuss why you're against circumcision, or why you feel male rape/DV victims don't get enough sympathy, or why family courts are unfairly biased towards giving women custody.

But funnily enough, we never seem to see these kinds of threads around. And when they do pop up, they always seem to end up as a bunch of people ranting about how much they hate those damn feminazis (who apparently invented gender inequality). It's almost as if people don't actually give a shit about any of these issues, and just want any excuse to derail conversations about gender inequality that affects women.
What you seem to not understand is that when you bring up how bad some issue is for women specifically then the implication is that it is either not a problem or much less of a problem for men just by virtue of singling out how it specifically effects women. An example of this is talking about how bad working conditions are for women with all the unequal pay and sexual harassment. While everyone is making a fuss over this no one is really paying attention to the fact that over 90% of work related deaths are men. Now I don't know about you but I think thats a pretty significant issue that no one apparently gives a shit about despite all this noise from wannabe feminists about equality. Are some things really bad for women but not men? Yes there is. These things should be looked at and fixed if possible. However there are also other important issues that are disproportionally detrimental to men and boys and these are rarely talked about if at all because to insinuate that sometimes men are getting the short end of the stick is seen as sexist towards women.
 

TheLion

New member
Apr 18, 2012
44
0
0
Feminism isn't the same thing as "what women think"
Which kinda begs the question; if the average woman isn't concerned with feminism beyond equal pay, body image, and sexual harassment, how relevant is this neo-feminist goal of destroying gender roles? Call me an idiot, but i very strongly believe in the Will of the People, and if women themselves are defending antiquated ideas like chivalry, I don't think feminist theory can touch it anytime soon. (I hold doors for everyone FWIW)
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,645
0
0
boots said:
Shock and Awe said:
What you seem to not understand is that when you bring up how bad some issue is for women specifically then the implication is that it is either not a problem or much less of a problem for men just by virtue of singling out how it specifically effects women. An example of this is talking about how bad working conditions are for women with all the unequal pay and sexual harassment. While everyone is making a fuss over this no one is really paying attention to the fact that over 90% of work related deaths are men.
What do sexual harassment and unequal pay have to do with workplace deaths? Yes, they both happen in the workplace, but they're entirely different issues, and sexual harassment in particular is an issue that mostly affects women. More to the point, do you actually care about workplace deaths outside of conversations about workplace sexual harassment?

And why are you so obsessed with playing Oppression Olympics and fighting over who is oppressed more? The old "women have it better off, men are the real victims!" retaliation has been trotted out since before women even had the right to vote [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men], and it's just as pointless now as it was back then. What is so astoundingly difficult about admitting that workplace deaths and workplace sexual harassment are both bad, instead of using the existence of one to justify the existence of the other?

Now I don't know about you but I think thats a pretty significant issue that no one apparently gives a shit about despite all this noise from wannabe feminists about equality.
If you think that's a pretty significant issue, start a thread about it! Or even better, take real action to help reduce workplace deaths! But when you only bring it up as an excuse to derail a thread about feminism and make snide digs at "wannabe feminists", I can't help but question whether you actually care about the issue at all.

Besides all this, it's not like men are disproportionately being killed in workplaces where there is an equal split between the sexes. That stat is almost entirely due to men being more likely to take physically dangerous jobs like construction and armed forces.
You keep asking me if I care about these issues I come back with. Do you care about them? As much as womens' issues? Thats really the heart of what we are talking about here. Feminists love to talk about how objectified and put down women are but really are rarely interested in actually trying to make things more equal. Instead they are interested in trying to make things better for women, even when it makes no sense. Feminists were jumping for joy when Women were allowed to enter Combat MOSs here in the US, but did anyone start clamoring for Women to start having to sign up for the draft? Not a chance in hell.

The reason people always come back in these threads with issues that effect men is because the people talking about how poor life is for women totally ignore them despite the fact that things are just as bad for men as they are for women.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
TheLion said:
Which kinda begs the question; if the average woman isn't concerned with feminism beyond equal pay, body image, and sexual harassment, how relevant is this neo-feminist goal of destroying gender roles? Call me an idiot, but i very strongly believe in the Will of the People, and if women themselves are defending antiquated ideas like chivalry, I don't think feminist theory can touch it anytime soon. (I hold doors for everyone FWIW)
The question of its "relevance" depends on who you ask. Most people are comfortable with contemporary gender roles, for the exact reason that it's what they're used to, and how they were raised. The actual content of these gender roles change over time, and not always in a logical fashion - it's become conventional for a woman to wear pants if she pleases, but it's still seens as weird for a man to wear a dress. So for the common people, as long as they aren't being screwed over, these gender roles are fine.

If you ask the "feminists" (I'm putting that in quotes because what I really mean is "those feminists who believe in dismantling gender roles", and not all feminists) then this apathy towards the subject is due to the self-reinforcing nature of these gender roles. People are raised to think certain, sometimes arbitrary things (blue = male, pink = female) and because they're raised like that, they're not concerned with changing it. To a feminist of this opinion, what's needed is to forcefully dismantle these roles. In their favour is the fact that these gender roles are a substantial barrier separating the two sexes and, sometimes, are used to justify discrimination. Against them is the observation that, as you say, they're not really acting according to the desires of the average women they purport to represent - in fact, their relationship with them is somewhat hostile, as the intellectuals want to force change and the common people are comfortable where they are.

boots said:
You're still caught up on the idea that feminism is a women-only club that only represents women. There are many, many, many male feminists out there and - by the same token - many sexist women who genuinely believe that they belong to the inferior gender.

Feminism just means gender equality, not "female expowerment".
I don't mean to disagree with you, but I should point out that "feminism" is by no means a clearly defined term, and the feminist "movement" is deeply fractured.

So while some feminists equate feminism with egalitarianism (and for some reason don't call it that), others define feminism as differential treatment based on rights unique to women (i.e. pregnancy), and some go whole-hog and define it solely as the empowerment of women. The further you go, the wierder it gets. I've met self-identified feminists who do not believe you can be a male feminist. I've met feminists who do not believe you can be a heterosexual or bisexual feminist. I've met feminists who don't believe in equal treatment between the sexes. I've met feminists who think you can't be a feminist if you want to get married. I've met feminists who automatically equate feminism with socialism, libertarianism, liberalism and objectivism (yeap), though rarely all at once. I've met feminists who think all the other feminists I've met aren't true Scotsmen.

What I take away from this, and I'm sure you're already aware, is that feminists can't really agree on what feminism is, so whenever someone says "I am a feminist" or "I need feminism" I feel compelled to ask them to specify. And while your personal views on feminism seem totally agreeable, it is misleading to say that "this" is feminism, and nothing else is, or that someone else is "wrong" about what feminism is. Not intentionally misleading - it's just that the same person you're correcting has probably been in such a situation before, where they're being corrected on what feminism is, and been told that something completely different is "feminism."