|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted July 16, 2014 05:52 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:00, 16 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Ooh boo hoo that those awful dyky feminists want to stop prostitution and the sexual exploitation of women and human trafficking.
If it doesn't involve the human trafficking (which is practically kidnapping uneducated people who don't know any better, from poor countries and using their desperation to FORCE them into prostitution), I don't think prostitution should be illegal. I can not see any basis to do that if it is a chosen way to make money, voluntarily.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 05:52 PM |
|
|
It is sickening.
What is sickening is that someone thought that because his much loved video game is now trying to attract and keep some of the other 50% of the worlds population (i.e. girl gamers) and have therefore equaled the balance and created female leads - that some guy should get a hard on about it and accuse the worlds feminists of taking some kind of jihad against male gamers/his game.
Yeah that is sickening.
And then to make things even worse, he goes on to make the most amazing statements - that feminists are lying about the oppression of women, or that rape can't be that bad a crime.
Ugh ... vomit.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 05:53 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Yeah, I agree to this to some degree. However, if given a difficult choice, I think the government would choose the ones who have the real power. Women. I mean, power isn't just the people who are in control. It could also be the people who are keeping them in control, you know what I mean?
I don't understand how women have the real power?
if you are talking about those who are keeping them in power, then it would be about everyone else, not just women. well, that's if we are talking about voluntary servitude.
also, to get the power, you have to want it, and I'm under the impression that men are more power hungry than women, more exactly, I would suspect that the minority of very power hungry people is made of more men than women.
there are other systems where you can actually be forced to have the power, but in that case, it's a way for people to keep control of it, rather than giving it up totally.
JeremiahEmo said:
Hey have you heard Obama's recent speech? He blatantly said "women are smarter than men". Yeah, I know he probably meant "more women are liberals" in Obamish but point is, it's clearcut ass kissing. I mean what's the point of saying that? Plus Obama would never say "men are smarter than women" even if there are more male liberals than female. (wanna bet?) He's also alienating liberal men who wouldn't take snow from sexism.
I didn't know, I don't listen to Obama's speech, but it reminds me of Poutine interview on the french TV, when they purposely mistranslated him to make him appear misogynist.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
also, to get the power, you have to want it, and I'm under the impression that men are more power hungry than women, more exactly, I would suspect that the minority of very power hungry people is made of more men than women.
Once again you can have a social or/and ontological explanation for that. If we were in the 1930's, you could have easily said "black people don't want be president anyway, they don't want to get into top positions." It's called learned helplessness.
I don't think saying men are more "power hungry" on an ontological basis is completely untrue, we have the biological background of wanting to become alpha males, which is a very strong motive to compete. However, this doesn't wipe out the fact that the social norms feed into inequality and more importantly, trying to accomplish things is NOT always about greed and power. There are other motivations, ideals, or you can simply want to be wealthy AND economically independent.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:07 PM |
|
|
EMO IS A KNOWN TROLL. IGNORE IT UNTILL THE ADMINS BAN IT.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:09 PM |
|
|
I thought so.
Thanks Lexxan.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:12 PM |
|
|
Just don't feed it and it will go away by itself.
That's how it ended up leaving Sucks, lol.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:28 PM |
|
|
LoL. I didn't leave Sucks silly. If you step out from your little misandric haven that is Clubs, you can actually find me posting my opinions excessively in TAR and Sucks main.
And ignore Lexxan. Everyone who disagrees with feminism or is different from the popular opinion which is female worshiping (popular in that website) is a troll for this guy. You're taking orders from someone who spends all his time ranking whatever movie shows he can come up with all day.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:36 PM |
|
|
|
artu : I was talking about people who seek a position of domination, I didn't really think of power in the sense of being able to accomplish something.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:44 PM |
|
|
Okay, let's skip "the movie shows" however accurate they might be, you wanted an example of sexism from 20th century and from US, since you didn't occur to me as the reading type, I picked a show that (also) focuses on that issue, regarding the advertisement world. But since you can label the fictional works in your conspiracy of feminists making up things in a perfect world, I'll give you the ads themselves:
There you go.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:49 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
also, to get the power, you have to want it, and I'm under the impression that men are more power hungry than women, more exactly, I would suspect that the minority of very power hungry people is made of more men than women.
Once again you can have a social or/and ontological explanation for that. If we were in the 1930's, you could have easily said "black people don't want be president anyway, they don't want to get into top positions." It's called learned helplessness.
I don't think saying men are more "power hungry" on an ontological basis is completely untrue, we have the biological background of wanting to become alpha males, which is a very strong motive to compete. However, this doesn't wipe out the fact that the social norms feed into inequality and more importantly, trying to accomplish things is NOT always about greed and power. There are other motivations, ideals, or you can simply want to be wealthy AND economically independent.
I disagree artu. Nowadays, women rival men as being power hungry. Are they more power hungry or less power hungry? That, we do not know because we have no statistics for it. However, here's my analysis.
In the basic sense, women tend to dominate men in relationships. I mean, how common do you see men who's taking orders from his wife? The wife or girlfriend tends to dominate the relationship. Well, at least this is what I see in my experience and the media. I've been selling for a living as well and most of the time, it's the wife/girlfriend who makes the decisions.
In a more general sense, we have the Women's Suffrage Movement. I've already explained to you guys how men earned their rights to vote. Through the draft. Now I'm not saying I am against women voting but women never paid their rights to vote with blood. The only reason why they protested their rights to vote was because men got it the year before. This also goes for feminism going for every rights the man have and abandoning their lifestyle as being housewives.
Now I'm not saying being housewives is perfect. There are those who gets abused by their husbands. But really, there were laws in the past that prohibit men from beating up their wives (Teddy Roosevelt's law) and alimony that would force a man to pay for the wife if she decided to abandon him.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 07:04 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:37, 16 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
In the basic sense, women tend to dominate men in relationships. I mean, how common do you see men who's taking orders from his wife? The wife or girlfriend tends to dominate the relationship. Well, at least this is what I see in my experience and the media. I've been selling for a living as well and most of the time, it's the wife/girlfriend who makes the decisions.
That is the exact kind of crap I was referring to, quoting the Chris Rock joke. If, in a world, where economical power is mostly male dominated, you think that it is the women who dominate the relationship because some men say "sure, honey, we'll pick the sofa you want" you are clueless about what dominance is. The men in your example choose to act that way because it pleases them to please their lady. There is nothing that forces them to act that way, they can spend all the money on wrestling tickets if they want. But if a woman says, I don't want to be in a position to convince my husband about what to buy, I want to be a heart surgeon and buy the frigging sofa myself, it's still harder for her to achieve that goal, even in the most developed countries.
Men may jump through hoops to impress women, that is not about rights or options, that's about preferences. You don't want to do it, don't.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:39, 16 Jul 2014.
|
seriously, what is even the difference between having no political power and giving it up after every election? 
and how is being dependent on your husband, oppression, but being dependent on your boss is liberation?
artu : those ads look very sexist now, but was it already seen that way back then? maybe companies liked commercial suicides? I think that's funny also, maybe that was meant to be, ads tend to be overly ridiculous.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 07:41 PM |
|
|
artu, actually, dominance is whoever gets their way. Business doesn't care if men could have chosen to spend those things on something else, businesses only care about what they are currently spending this on. And this is as you said, what their girlfriends want. So, business will ass kiss whoever has the spending power. I can give you a few businesses wherein men are clearly discriminated against:
1. I forgot what airlines it was but surely you've heard of this. It was the one that prohibits men for sitting next to children because they could be potential child molesters.
2. There was a company that was hiring employees and clearly stated "white men need not apply".
And you talked about rights? Yes, I agree, it doesn't concern rights. What's your stance here? What are you trying to prove?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 07:48 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
What do you mean with "emotional abuse"?
Being belittled, made to feel worthless, told that only their girlfriend could ever love them and if they leave, no one will love them again, etc. Classic abuser tactics.JeremiahEmo said:
if feminists care about men NOT being drafted, give me any citations wherein feminists are actually working on men NOT being drafted (or other men issues like family court cases or prison sentence).
And no, the vote wasn't just granted to men. They were allowed to vote because they were drafted. I've explained this to you over and over again.
You can care about a lot of things and not work on them, because there are so many issues to work on. In the US, men are already not being drafted (Selective Service doesn't count), so it wouldn't make much sense to work on that. But feminists focus on liberation for women - that doesn't mean they're against liberation for men, even if they don't focus on it as much.
As for men voting and being drafted, never in the history of the post-independence US have men fought to have the right to vote. Men were drafted, and they had the right to vote, but those are two unrelated phenomena.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 07:49 PM |
|
|
Fauch said:
seriously, what is even the difference between having no political power and giving it up after every election?
and how is being dependent on your husband, oppression, but being dependent on your boss is liberation?
artu : those ads look very sexist now, but was it already seen that way back then? maybe companies liked commercial suicides? I think that's funny also, maybe that was meant to be, ads tend to be overly ridiculous.
yeah, it looked pretty sexist. Those types of ads actually exist now. Only reverse gender. e.g. Men always portrayed as the bumbling fool while their wives/girlfriends always saves the day. Some advocate violence against men which is sexist towards men since the male gender is historically the disposable gender. For more information, you can watch the Misandry in the Media series in youtube.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 08:04 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JollyJoker said:
What do you mean with "emotional abuse"?
Being belittled, made to feel worthless, told that only their girlfriend could ever love them and if they leave, no one will love them again, etc. Classic abuser tactics.JeremiahEmo said:
if feminists care about men NOT being drafted, give me any citations wherein feminists are actually working on men NOT being drafted (or other men issues like family court cases or prison sentence).
And no, the vote wasn't just granted to men. They were allowed to vote because they were drafted. I've explained this to you over and over again.
You can care about a lot of things and not work on them, because there are so many issues to work on. In the US, men are already not being drafted (Selective Service doesn't count), so it wouldn't make much sense to work on that. But feminists focus on liberation for women - that doesn't mean they're against liberation for men, even if they don't focus on it as much.
As for men voting and being drafted, never in the history of the post-independence US have men fought to have the right to vote. Men were drafted, and they had the right to vote, but those are two unrelated phenomena.
Actually, it was related and I explained it to you over and over again. I've even given you a few citations. But since you keep insisting it's not, without providing any reason as why you think it's not related, I guess you'll never get it. So, there's no point in continuing the draft-rightsToVote argument.
Hmm.. you did clearly say feminists are working to abolish gender roles including the ones that affect men.
So yeah, I think my point still stands.
And what is this liberation feminists are still working on? Can you name at least one right men have that women don't?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:59, 16 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
And you talked about rights? Yes, I agree, it doesn't concern rights. What's your stance here? What are you trying to prove?
I'm simply saying cherry-picking a few poorly applied samples of positive discrimination or bringing up examples of men trying to impress women is in no way a justified or valid stance to condemn feminism when you look at the bigger picture. You seem to be living in a dream world where all men are "whipped" by women and this sinister plan is executed by the evil feminist syndicate which exploits political correctness to dominate us poor males. Grow up and don't buy the game if the female heroes annoy you so much.
It would have been an understandable rant if you had only complained about the design of the game characters, it's a matter of taste. That's not what you do, you ignore a blatantly obvious social structure reproducing prejudice and inequality because some of the reactions are inconvenient for your fun. When I put things into scale, the inconveniences you go through and women go through, I would easily say, what they have to deal with, makes your short-sighted complaints look like the whining of a spoiled brat.
Quote:
And what is this liberation feminists are still working on? Can you name at least one right men have that women don't?
I already did that.
Fauch said:
seriously, what is even the difference between having no political power and giving it up after every election?
and how is being dependent on your husband, oppression, but being dependent on your boss is liberation?
artu : those ads look very sexist now, but was it already seen that way back then? maybe companies liked commercial suicides? I think that's funny also, maybe that was meant to be, ads tend to be overly ridiculous.
There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between the economical dependence you have due to earning a living and dependence structured on gender. Also, don't underestimate independence because it is not absolute. Nothing in this life is absolute, but the magnitude of restriction a slave faces and a citizen faces is different, isn't it?
And the ads look very sexist now, BECAUSE of the feminist reaction they had faced way back then. That's the point!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 08:48 PM |
|
|
Jeremiah, you haven't given any explanation of how men fought for the right to vote. When in the history of the post-independence US did men take up arms because they weren't being allowed to vote? Never. So the "men fighting for the right to vote" argument doesn't work. But more importantly, you shouldn't have to fight in order to have the right to vote, so if women didn't have to fight for it, that's good, because no one should have to fight for it, and the fewer do, the better.Quote:
Hmm.. you did clearly say feminists are working to abolish gender roles including the ones that affect men.
They are. They're working to abolish the entire complex of currently existing sexist social norms.Quote:
And what is this liberation feminists are still working on? Can you name at least one right men have that women don't?
In modern Western countries, de jure men and women have the same rights. However, they still face different social norms, different pressures, and so on - and women are relatively worse off for it. That's what women fight against.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 10:01 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
also, to get the power, you have to want it, and I'm under the impression that men are more power hungry than women, more exactly, I would suspect that the minority of very power hungry people is made of more men than women.
Once again you can have a social or/and ontological explanation for that. If we were in the 1930's, you could have easily said "black people don't want be president anyway, they don't want to get into top positions." It's called learned helplessness.
I don't think saying men are more "power hungry" on an ontological basis is completely untrue, we have the biological background of wanting to become alpha males, which is a very strong motive to compete. However, this doesn't wipe out the fact that the social norms feed into inequality and more importantly, trying to accomplish things is NOT always about greed and power. There are other motivations, ideals, or you can simply want to be wealthy AND economically independent.
Let me just post this video here to illustrate your point further: link
|
| |
|
|
