@ all the retards cucking out for TERFs
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (78)
sorted by:
We don't like TERFs either, but for different reasons than TRAs.
even the most based te is still an rf
They still want to castrate and/or kill boys and men for the crime of being boys or men.
Exactly.
There's no reason to defend your enemy when their own weapon attacks them.
Would they protect us if we tried to create something to "correct" them and it backfired?
Why on earth should we do it then? The existence of trannies is literally due to feminists, who wanted to subject every male to hormone therapy to correct the "defect" of maleness.
who+where are these people cucking out for the terfs tho
Well, here, the people that downvote me when I call out the fact the "war on women" is a lie, and elsewhere, most of Patriots believes these inbred retards to be allies.
Anyone fighting against SJWs is an ally.
Negative, Ghost Rider. As much as I don't mind talking to the anti-idpol dirt bag left, they are still leftists. Fuck commies.
There is no connection. But there is a nazi-Marxist connection.
I disagree. If their goals are even worse than the enemy, how are they an ally?
That's if this whole thing isn't just useful idiots falling for a feminist elite agenda where they fake being oppressed by their own creation to take over the right with a "save your daughters from hairy men in dresses" tagline.
Still mad about them getting what they wanted from the NDAA. Conservatives are very useless allies sometimes.
I don't think their goals are even worse, but even if they were, they'd serve a valuable purpose. Can you just please read a work on IR, Realpolitik or realism - or people are going to think that you're a dumbshit.
It's fantastic, and they've inflicted a greater number of defeats on the SJWs than may have been expected based on their size. So they have my stamp of approval.
Oh, did the completely inconsequential and never to be applied draft provision get removed? Good, it acknowledges that men and women are different.
Until traditional roles are returned to society, men shouldn't have to go to war and die for women's benefit.
What valuable purpose? All their arguments revolve around women having some kind of superiority.
Like what? They've not achieved anything but fooling the gullible into supporting feminism.
No, it acknowledges that women are considered superior to you and you should die for their protection even though they couldn't give a fuck about you.
Let Hitler and Stalin beat each other bloody senseless. Let Hirohito and Mao bloody each other. When evil fights evil, let them fight, and then kill the victor.
Or rather, girls who falsely claim to be male to cure their defect of femaleness.
But that's an unintended side effect. Transitioning girls to male was not part of any of the original studies.
It's most of them today, and it's applauded by the autogynephiliacs who want affirmation for their sickening fetish.
Once they see "male privilege" isn't real, they'll get taxpayer funded fake breasts and detransition. Don't worry about them.
I don't. In fact, I think it's great if they have hysterectomies, because them not having children moves the human race in a more sane direction. That said, I don't like how they recruit the children of good and decent people.
It’s funny to watch them eat each other.
This place is way less interesting when you're banned.
I'm not sure if this is a compliment or not, but I'll take it.
It is. I don't know why some have such a visceral reaction to what you say, but the flame wars are always fun to read. You're probably the only person here that can create a post that gets 60 comments within an hour.
When comfortable lies are shattered by the truth, people react in different ways.
It's easy to blame Jews, billionaires, illegals and Muslims for shit. You don't know any, most likely.
But to talk about how any woman could be hiding a truly disturbing set of beliefs from you, that really shatters the illusion that the enemy is a cabal of people out of sight that you can label as an enemy and get away from.
All of this works for me. I don't know if you're referring to this community or the right in general but at least here I rarely see anyone defending TERF's. The most positive thing that people here are willing to say is that they're right about trannies, but for the wrong reasons. If the tranny problem were confined to them targeting women I'd say let them get fucked the bed they made. But trannies drag EVERYONE into their bullshit, so they're our problem too. We shouldn't be in the business of saving TERFs from their own bullshit backfiring, but we shouldn't tolerate the shit they subject us to just to spite the TERFs either.
You talked a lot about what we should do. Now let's talk about what we can do. What can men in the West actually do? Women are the majority of voters. Nothing is going to get rolled back to a culture you are comfortable with. This train has no stops.
You want to completely D&C western civilization so we can finally be snuffed out by Chang and Hershowitz?
Judith Butler, Andrea Dworkin, Naomi Klein, Gloria Steinem, Emma Faber, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Louise Weiss, Betty Friedan, Kate Bornstein, Emma Goldman, Naomi Wolf, Ariel Levy, Emma Sulkowicz, Gloria Allred, Laurie Penny, Liat Kaplan
Post nose.
Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Nadezhda Krupskaya, bell hooks, Catherine MacKinnon, Sally Miller Gearhart, Kate Millett, Carol Hanisch, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, Virginia Held, Camille Paglia, Iris Marion Young, Susan Moller Okin, Chandra Mohanty, Claudia Card, Ingrid Robeyns.
Notice that everyone on my list is considered a thought leader and an ideological influence on the feminist movement, while half of yours are armchair activists and internet celebrities.
The pattern you're trying to illustrate doesn't exist. You're just gaslighting like a leftist.
Fuck...that name takes me back to a bad place.
I remember when people thought she was a good feminist. She's a dirty pedophile.
They thought that because all they knew about her was that she had, through her experience with women in domestic violence shelters, realised that feminist narratives about domestic violence were complete fucking nonsense.
Somehow, people thought this one bit of awareness, born of her own direct experience, meant she understood the reality of things she had not experienced. This would have beena reasonable expectation, but it would require Paglia to have taken the realization that feminism was talking out of its arse on domest violence, and asked herself the question 'What else is feminism wrong about, and why am I calling myself a feminist when I know they are wrong?'
These are questions she has never, ever asked herself. She uncritically swallows feminist dogma on that which she has no direct experience of herself. Like the person who keeps reading the same newspaper even after seeing them get something completely backwards.
Baby's first feminist list right here.
We know more about feminism than most normie women that identify as feminist.
That's not exactly hard. Most of them see "hate men and get money that men stole from you" and their eyes glow like Chernobyl's fourth reactor.
Still, including memes like Dworkin who had an anti-porn stance that most of her enemies share, and barely recognized grifters like Allred and Wolf is a bit low quality.
You didn't even have Sally Miller Gearhart, the credited founder of gender studies and the writer of the line that occupies half of my posts.
"The male population must be reduced to 10% and power restored to women."
You didn't have Valerie Solanas, who was literally funded by the NOW and a close personal friend of NOW chair Ti-Grace Atkinson. (Might have fucked up that name. It was definitely something odd like that.) She had NOW funded lawyers at her trial for the shooting of Andy Warhol, and her manifesto advocating for the slow takeover of the "institutions of patriarchy" to enable male genocide is taught in women's studies as a key text. It was even praised by the New York Times pre-pandemic.
You didn't have John Money, who deserves to be in the feminist category for allying with them to prove men are defective in exchange for sexual access to young boys.
You didn't have the "female Freud", Karen Horney, who started the field of feminist psychology that is still used to dehumanize us today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Horney - just in case you never knew about her. Even Wikipedia can't make her look good. She considered marriage an act of sadism...which is true today, but for the opposite reasons she ranted about.
You didn't have Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the WSPU and the main drive behind militant and hateful feminism, way before most of your list were even bundles of cells.
I could keep going, but these omissions stuck out most.
Damn, consider myself schooled.
For once I actually made a comment that didn't look full tinfoil.
My reaction when I'm actually shown to have knowledge
kek. restored?
What if I were to tell you...
It was jewish women that created feminism?
You'd be advertising that you know nothing about the role of women in 19th century protestantism.
I'd tell you that you're full of shit.
The first militant feminists were British upper-class women.
It's always the upper classes that create the problems.
I forget where I read this but...
That movie with Marlon Brando?
"Whatcha got?"
You'd be wrong...
It's called "Let them fight."
Why get involved when your enemies are fighting each other? There's been no defense, only drawing attention so that we can laugh at it. Get over yourself, your paranoia is reaching new extremes.
Like JK Rowling, a prolific donator to feminist politicians?
You're being played for a fool by these people.
Next election, they will push the "war on women" propaganda and try to fill the right with their plants.
It's not fair to have men fund women's sports either.
But they don't complain about that!
In the war between TERFs and TRAs, I actually support TRAs (other than the kids stuff). TRAs' agitation for gender neutral everything is doing more for equality than decades of MRA efforts.
For example by making it easier to change your gender to F (without surgery or chemical castration) it finally allows men to bypass unfair laws in employment, education and funding. What MRA actions in 30 years comes even close to that?
We will never get rid of feminism because women love it. However, we can at least get closer to equality so the impact of feminism on men is lessened.
I don't support any woman who wont publicly declare that women shouldn't vote
The enemy of my enemy...is still a fucking feminist.
Well said.
Ah, the way of MGTOW. Non participation is corrosive and will erode empires.
I think this should be what men do in November instead of growing mustaches. Since most wars men have fought in have resulted in nothing but them losing their lives for no reason, espcially since the list now includes ww1 and ww2, I think men need a new honorarium. That lasts a month if not longer.
I'm a bit amazed that anyone would consider someone's gender as a factor in whether or not to help someone, rather than the justice of his cause.
Half of women's issues are solely supported because they're women's issues.
Would men give a shit about abortion if women didn't give long, emotional arguments about it that make people feel sorry for them?
I don't give a damn about women's issues, but if a someone is wronged, it doesn't matter to me if that someone is a man or a woman. It sounds crazy to have to even say this.
Yes, because then they'd be on the hook for the stupid brats.
Or they could be adopted.
I also think if abortion didn't exist, baby trapping wouldn't be attempted as much, because if he skips town, she has an unwanted baby and no income.
Listen, I know you think women are the literal devil and such as, but the problem here is simple biology. Once the child is born, it is very hard for a woman to part with her own child. If you think all abortions will be replaced by adoptions, you are deluding yourself.
It's mostly men who benefit from abortion, and women who suffer from it, because they end up with the psychological scars for having done such a misdeed.
Is this like that other thing that you claimed happens a lot, but then it turned out that your only evidence for it was the "well, MRAs talked about it once"?
Yet academic papers exist (which I've posted) talking about how women are more likely to kill babies and toddlers.
They don't even feel the slightest bit of pain. It's like when people say the OnlyThots feel used. They don't. Every payment to them is not degrading, but a tithe to a goddess.
The funny thing is, I've repeatedly challenged you to show the percentage of women who do that, and you've never been able to reply. Because all you can do is show that 60% of children are killed by women, and 40% by men. The true percentage is of course infinitesimal, because if people were predisposed to kill their own children, they wouldn't be here today.
How do you know this?
Refer to points 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8.