Me and Imp are both about as "anti-women" and "pro-men" as they come but yes, we seem to have very different conceptions of what the ideal to realize that is.
I would say I am very much the pinnacle of what a pure patriarchy would be while still trying to sustain and grow a civilization by incorporating women in said society, whereas Imp seems to be more focused on entirely removing men from having any relationship to women whatsoever regardless of the impacts this would have on society or its sustainability.
Imp seems to be more focused on entirely removing men from having any relationship to women whatsoever regardless of the impacts this would have on society or its sustainability.
He claims that is a tactic to pressure women into doing what we want. If you point out that it won't work because women would indeed let the species be destroyed to keep acting however the hell they want to act, he will simply say that proves he is right about women.
Yes, I've had the argument with him before. I think it's a very weak spot in his thinking. My take is that he's so blinded by his anger at women (justified anger, imo) enough he wants to completely remove anything to do with them before he cares to think of anything surrounding this. He's set on this goal and perhaps if this is ever realized then he'd focus on figuring things out.
A decent comparison might be two tribes that have warned with each other for decades and are in the peak of the war. Someone in the tribe says "are you sure we should kill all the men, what about rebuilding after the war, won't we need all the manpower we can get? Wouldn't enslaving them make more sense?" But everyone is so blinded by their rage at their enemy they can't think this far ahead and completely dismiss the idea. Only after the war and the implications of it are starting to be realized might someone be like hmm maybe we should have enslaved the men.
As a liberal, he wants "liberation" from his own "gender role." He hides this behind claims of strategy or spite, but that's a huge motivation for him.
Me and Imp are both about as "anti-women" and "pro-men" as they come but yes, we seem to have very different conceptions of what the ideal to realize that is.
I would say I am very much the pinnacle of what a pure patriarchy would be while still trying to sustain and grow a civilization by incorporating women in said society, whereas Imp seems to be more focused on entirely removing men from having any relationship to women whatsoever regardless of the impacts this would have on society or its sustainability.
He claims that is a tactic to pressure women into doing what we want. If you point out that it won't work because women would indeed let the species be destroyed to keep acting however the hell they want to act, he will simply say that proves he is right about women.
Yes, I've had the argument with him before. I think it's a very weak spot in his thinking. My take is that he's so blinded by his anger at women (justified anger, imo) enough he wants to completely remove anything to do with them before he cares to think of anything surrounding this. He's set on this goal and perhaps if this is ever realized then he'd focus on figuring things out.
A decent comparison might be two tribes that have warned with each other for decades and are in the peak of the war. Someone in the tribe says "are you sure we should kill all the men, what about rebuilding after the war, won't we need all the manpower we can get? Wouldn't enslaving them make more sense?" But everyone is so blinded by their rage at their enemy they can't think this far ahead and completely dismiss the idea. Only after the war and the implications of it are starting to be realized might someone be like hmm maybe we should have enslaved the men.
He isn't blinded. He's just a liberal.
True but I thought being a liberal did indeed make one blind ;)
As a liberal, he wants "liberation" from his own "gender role." He hides this behind claims of strategy or spite, but that's a huge motivation for him.