So why is that? Why are people still not realizing the fact that feminism got their "rights" through fear, intimidation on a pile of corpses and debris of buildings they blew up? People are letting these liars to just convince people that they're "force for good" and only want "equality" yet when you bring it up to their historical account of terror attacks, they got full NAFALT. Why are letting these people get away with it and not holding them accountable? Are we this desentized that we are so scared of being labeled as misogynists?
Comments (24)
sorted by:
You are preaching to the choir with me.
I despise all feminists.
I know their history. I know their heroes. I know their terrorism. I know their manifestos. I know their goals.
The normies will never listen to us. That is the biggest problem.
I'm sure the polls showing black and Latino men backing Trump are just a coincidence.
The great awakening (God I hate using that phrase. Fucking Q larpers ruined it.) is coming, because as we all put literal masks on, their ideological mask fell off.
Feminists leveraged the most powerful force in man's arsenal. His protectoral instinct. Mixing it with the "Women are Wonderful" and "Halo" effects, they made a movement that jumped right past our logical centers and made us move entirely on lizard brain power.
Honestly, it was a brilliant move and they/we know its impossible to actually convince normies to turn against them.
What we cannot do, they themselves can.
Fear of being called racist and 'misogynist' is the 21st century equivalent of fear of being called a witch or a heretic.
I always ask if those "one of the good ones" women who infest the MRAs and other pro-men movements if they are willing to give up their vote, career, sexual freedom and be submissive again. You know, returning the ill gotten gains of feminism.
The answer is rarely yes, and you know they wouldn't be able to maintain it.
As is true for most activists, they want to fight symptoms forever, such as 3rd (did they move to 4th yet?) wave feminism without ever EVER acknowledging the root that birthed it and will continue to do so.
In a way, they are exactly what feminists stereotype them as. Girls sucking up to men, trying to get attention by being "different" without much to show for it.
Historically, women were anything but 'submissive', at least in the Western world. The rest is accurate, but none of them is doing them any good. Women are more miserable than ever, because all of this is contrary to female nature. The issue is that being more miserable and having these rights might be preferable to the converse, after all, better Socrates, discontent, than a pig, content.
I disagree. As if they can't think for themselves and come to different conclusions than rabid shrews.
Outside of massive class differences, they were. This is more of a cultural meaning of the word than individual, such as the very common patriarchal system most social groupings ran under. They didn't need full submission to everyone but they always operated as #2 in their home, under husband or father or both.
Modern times have changed the meaning of the word into implying a far bigger extreme version than it requires. Though even then, plenty cultures have that extreme submission idea such as many Asian ones.
Doesn't have to do them good if they think its good. That goes for all humans. How many guys consume porn or video games until their life is a blank mess? Or smoke pot/drink until they can't function, but consider it the "cure" for their problems?
This "reality vs expectations" irony is what feminism thrived on. How much was the push for women in the workforce based on increasing household income, only for people to end up poorer because prices increased expecting that extra income.
What does it matter what their conclusions are? Their actions are what is being judged. As they have rejected the earlier notion of returning the gains, they are simply doing a performative piece instead. And in this case, they are rejecting feminism to be contrarian and/or raise their status level. Like every other "not like other girls" type.
Then I misunderstood what you meant. I would definitely regard it as degrading to be regarded as 'submissive'. But being the second in the home is nothing more than reasonable.
How so? They are not obliged to 'return the gains'. They may well regard the previous gains as desirable, but the current bat-shit hype as complete nonsense, as nearly all reasonable people do.
It only is if you let it be. That's a notion behind many problems with gender relations, imo. Its why all women have to be tough, independent, etc. Because to be seen as submissive for a moment it to be degrading.
But anyone, except feminists, from a traditional type home would never talk about their mother's position as degrading even if dad ruled the roost.
That's the same logic that justifies communism. Its great, until it isn't. "But it only wasn't because bad people happened!" It completely ignores the chain of A leading to B. If you never remove A, then you just keep having B forever.
They aren't obliged at all, don't misunderstand me. They do what's best for them and that's all anyone should ask. But they shouldn't pretend to be doing some altruistic act of fighting for someone else's rights while drinking from the teet that took them away.
I don't like touching this debate, but alright, let's go. If they didn't vote, we'd probably have a better world.
However - I can't justify taxing people and not letting them vote. I definitely can't justify them not paying taxes because they can't vote.
If I was in charge, I'd make it so only people who were not claiming handouts in the previous year could vote, excepting circumstances like China Flu that caused millions to take handouts.
This one can be shut down pretty quickly.
Do you really want them reaching into your wallet because they're not allowed to work? I don't.
Not touching it. Just not touching this debate. All I'll say is that cutting off the flow of sex wouldn't prop up the failing and dated institution of marriage.
The problem with taking action against them is that you risk a constant societal fight, one side taking their shot, then the other, then back again, then again, then again.
That's my main issue, I can talk up a lot about what they are doing in individual cases and how to fix it, but how do you play it at a societal level?
You can't even get leftists to respect the Constitution, so the idea of another bill of rights that protects men from feminism is a non-starter.
We tried waiting for the good women to save us, now we have politicians with female murderers at their conventions and media outlets that praise those who advocate for male genocide. Didn't work.
If they didn't work, how much were they being taxed to begin with? You are correct in that stance though, taxation without a voice is tyranny. But all tax is theft to begin with, even if you get the illusion of influence.
Unlike you, I do believe in the value of traditional gender roles and structures. She doesn't "reach into my wallet." She and I both work with what is best for the home, and are given allowance with the surplus relative to our recent behavior.
Which leads back into taxes, working as a single unit (aka a household or family) rather than an individual for taxing purposes. As the money isn't split, neither does the need for taxes.
Don't then. But its probably the biggest elephant in the room of why they are so miserable and angry all the time, and society is changing in horrible ways. Sex is the most important act in all of the animal kingdom, the slightest change in how it works has massive ramifications, let alone a huge one like that.
I wait for the collapse and hope in the rebuild things end up better. Or hope for the end of all things otherwise.
This isn't ever going back in the box, I have no illusions of fixing things really. Only that people look at the world as it is, rather than what they wish it was. Something that puts me far more extreme and apart from the MRAs and whatever else they call themselves now, I'm aware.
I don't know why you're bringing taxes into it. 12 year olds still pay sales tax, and probably most other taxes too, if applicable. Regardless, check the 26th amendment. Lowered the voting age to 18, based largely on the argument "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote", since 18-year-olds could be drafted. 18 year old MEN, of course. So women should get to vote at the same age as they register for the draft, just like men. At the age of...
Someone might bring up the points that women lack physical strength and probably aren't great for unit cohesion to begin with, and will definitely get pregnant if they don't want to go to war, and society definitely doesn't have the nerve to either force abortions or force birth control or send pregnant women to war, so women are effectively undraftable. I acknowledge all that, and I think there's a workable forced factory work for minimum pay alternative (which should then be made an option for both genders), but that's all besides the point, as the current system doesn't even try, women get the right of voting and don't get the responsibilities.
Women are a net negative in any military, and not in a small way. Even the famed Israeli army, they're just for show and a last line of defense when the choices are "die" or "die fighting".
The Nineteenth Amendment was a mistake.
Because the comforting lie is better than realizing up to half the population wants you dead.
The question isn't how radical they are, we know how far they want to go. The question is - how many of them will go with it, how many will sit and watch and how many will oppose.
Up to 100% of people in history were named 'Adolf Hitler' and massacred millions of people.
I feel like you knew what I meant and just wanted to be pedantic.
I meant that it's easier to believe the lie than consider that a minimum of 19% (38% of women identify as feminist in the Western world, but I forget where I found that statistic.) of the population want you dead and it could be as high as nearly half.
As I said in my other comment - the end goal is entirely beyond doubt. The question now is how many actively support it, how many will be doing nothing and how many will actually act against it.
Not quite. It's not a serious point, after all. At least, literally taken. But 'up to' is quite ridiculous.
In England, it is 10%, and not even all of those "want you dead". Rather they want you to be their pet. You're quite useful opening jars.
Yes, to put themselves above you. I have no idea where you got the "want me dead" idea from.
If you think a bunch of morbidly obese, blue-haired, out of shape losers with the upper body strength of a 5-year-old boy are in any position to kill half the human population, I don't even know what to say to you.
No way. No fucking way. Not even entertaining it.
I think you forget how bad things are over there. It's clearly not 10%, or they wouldn't keep getting further, regardless of whether the puppet in the seat is red or blue.
Obligatory fuck you to Boris Johnson, the invertebrate.
From their insane plan to basically legalize murder, their borderline sainthood of female murderers and the constant background noise on social media of them screeching kill all men.
Also, you know there are ways to kill people that don't involve physical force? Anything from bioweapons to drones can be used.
Well, if it comes to that, it won't be women doing the dirty work. It'll be other men who are more than happy to kill the competition.
Yeah, it's definitely frustrating to see the comments that go "well sure feminism is bad now, but back in the day it was ok, they actually fought for equality then". No, that's just your ignorance reinforced by modern propaganda. Basically just people falling for the motte of "equality" and ignoring the bailey of "without equal responsibilities, not for just anybody, and certainly not when the results would be disadvantageous".
Feminists are evil egalitarianism is for equality feminism is simply for supremacy.