That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it.
All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.
The fact that she is even allowed to call men wimps is because she is surrounded by them.
That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it.
All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.
Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.
Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.
Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together for their own interests. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His phrasing, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at windmills, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.
tl;dr One man alone no matter how powerful he is cannot have agency to enact change. His capability for violence pales in comparison to the collective, which enforces feminine rule. Because societies are made up of men AND women, men do not have a monopoly on the use of violence. Ergo any individual man not stopping radical feminism is not "weak". TheImp is right.
it's showing our restraint and humanity compared to their lack of it.
Literally all cowardice can be framed this way, if you ignore the future consequences of negligence.
Conflict leads to suffering -> "I'm not conflict averse I'm just too compassionate to cause suffering".
But that ignores the fact that conflict with a bad actor can lead to preventing them from causing very much more suffering in the future, so the "minimizing suffering" rationale is bullshit with the barest amount of foresight.
Most modern men know feminism is just malicious, self-serving bullshit now, and that it causes far more injustice and suffering than it helps. That the majority will never attack it is some combination of cowardice and stupidity, both of which are factors that make a man objectively weak.
But you're right that the most effective way to solve the problem now is probably for men to foster an even stronger in-group bias of their own. Most men over 25 have been damaged too long to ever hope to improve their weakness enough to fight effectively on their now, but even cowards will be happy to fight once enough people have their back, and the idiots will be just as likely to start blindly believing and supporting calls for male recompense once enough people keep telling them it's the right thing to do.
Maybe once that happens we'll stop stamping out the will of the next generations of men to believe in themselves and be willing to proactively fight for what they believe in, rather than conditioning them to believe the only suffering that is morally permissable is their own.
Men are wimps because four entire generations of men were raised by women with almost no positive male role models.
This was allowed to happen because men caved to the women's rights lobby after the first world War, which became almost inevitable after an entire of generation of young men were massacred.
The same generations of men that built our highways and electrical grids, went to the moon and invented the internet all folded up like a cheap suit in the face of feminist infiltration into our institutions. They allowed this to happen, and their sons and grandsons are paying the price for it.
None of that absolves women of their responsibility.
Plenty of men too. A lot of the ideas considered "traditionalist" are actually feminist because so-called traditionalist actually believe the feminist myth about "patriarchy". Human society was never run by men for their own benefit, but that is what most believe.
That's a literally true statement though, no matter which way you slice it.
All power and agency that women possess is given to them by men. All laws are enforced by men. Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived, and men are far superior in the arena of violence.
The fact that she is even allowed to call men wimps is because she is surrounded by them.
Your argument is so superficial that it is almost reductio ad adsurdum. Yes, violence is supreme for enforcing authority, but your argument itself is internally inconsistent and has no actual semblance to reality. No individual man has sufficient capability to enforce authority through violence by himself. It is only collections of men who have this power. Yet, collections of men do not act as a single unit through some kind of hive mind, but rather, the way the collective acts is ultimately dependent on interpersonal dynamics among the men involved, and others (external) who are capable of influencing their decisions.
Therein lies the flaw in your argument - men may be physically stronger than average compared to women, giving them a kind of "monopoly" on violence at an individual level, but do not have a monopoly on controlling these interpersonal dynamics and thus do not have a monopoly on violence at a group level, simply because the group is not a unit that acts individually. The "supreme authority" in human society is thus ability to enlist the participation of collectives of people to enforce authority. And this authority can be controlled and influenced by both men and women.
Regarding your arguments about men being "weak" and being able to stop this by being "strong", no individual man can make any difference by being strong by himself because he can always be taken down by a group of men who obviously have a much greater ability to be "strong" and inflict violence. Thus, men can only make a difference by operating collectively to be strong together for their own interests. This reduces your argument to the equivalent of Imp's - men need to recognise the problem is that they are being controlled by women mainly for women's own interest, and unite to ensure their own interest are respected too. His phrasing, however, addresses much more clearly what the actual problem is: men's failure to work collectively (especially contrasted with women's strong ability to do so), while your argument of "men need to be strong" is more akin tilting at windmills, as the obvious literal interpretation is that individual physical strength is the most necessary factor, when it is not.
tl;dr One man alone no matter how powerful he is cannot have agency to enact change. His capability for violence pales in comparison to the collective, which enforces feminine rule. Because societies are made up of men AND women, men do not have a monopoly on the use of violence. Ergo any individual man not stopping radical feminism is not "weak". TheImp is right.
Through weakness, men chose to let women vote.
Society has been doomed ever since.
Correct. The system could be fixed if men stopped being weak.
Ergo: It's men's fault.
Women's rights are men's fault. It's a failed shit test.
When they started demanding rights they had no need of at the beginning of the 20th century, we should've gone full Mohammed on them.
Tautology.
Feminism only exists because of the weakness of men.
Doormats are not good people.
rofl
Literally all cowardice can be framed this way, if you ignore the future consequences of negligence.
Conflict leads to suffering -> "I'm not conflict averse I'm just too compassionate to cause suffering".
But that ignores the fact that conflict with a bad actor can lead to preventing them from causing very much more suffering in the future, so the "minimizing suffering" rationale is bullshit with the barest amount of foresight.
Most modern men know feminism is just malicious, self-serving bullshit now, and that it causes far more injustice and suffering than it helps. That the majority will never attack it is some combination of cowardice and stupidity, both of which are factors that make a man objectively weak.
But you're right that the most effective way to solve the problem now is probably for men to foster an even stronger in-group bias of their own. Most men over 25 have been damaged too long to ever hope to improve their weakness enough to fight effectively on their now, but even cowards will be happy to fight once enough people have their back, and the idiots will be just as likely to start blindly believing and supporting calls for male recompense once enough people keep telling them it's the right thing to do.
Maybe once that happens we'll stop stamping out the will of the next generations of men to believe in themselves and be willing to proactively fight for what they believe in, rather than conditioning them to believe the only suffering that is morally permissable is their own.
Men are wimps because four entire generations of men were raised by women with almost no positive male role models.
This was allowed to happen because men caved to the women's rights lobby after the first world War, which became almost inevitable after an entire of generation of young men were massacred.
The same generations of men that built our highways and electrical grids, went to the moon and invented the internet all folded up like a cheap suit in the face of feminist infiltration into our institutions. They allowed this to happen, and their sons and grandsons are paying the price for it.
None of that absolves women of their responsibility.
Are they feminist plants or just women? I mean feminist plants sounds like some grand conspiracy theory with some grand queen directing everything.
Women are a tribe, and when it comes down to it they generally all have some feminism in them.
Plenty of men too. A lot of the ideas considered "traditionalist" are actually feminist because so-called traditionalist actually believe the feminist myth about "patriarchy". Human society was never run by men for their own benefit, but that is what most believe.
Stop simping.
Am I a feminist plant now?
How exhausting is it to regard literally everything as a conspiracy?
Answer the question.
You're too much of a pussy to answer this, like you can't answer criticisms over how you smeared Kyle Rittenhouse's girlfriend?
Unsurprising.
Nope, that's retarded.