Written by Rasputin on 06.06.2015 at 21:20
Interesting, I never had that issue with anti-feminist/anti-LGBT issue, maybe because I am anti to both

You are correct, there is no superior position either liberal or conservative, but I would have to say that in order to have a functional society a certain dose of conservative thought is necessary, instead of "do what I like." It may not be direct relation to Feminism, but is one by proxy. Women have taken a lot of control, at least in the media, regardless of what they say, and then a lot of it is passed down through the education system. Not to play gender bias, but women do tend to lean towards the emotion more, and to me that is obvious in online discussions, discussions in person, and even they themselves admit that they are emotional. Trigger-warnings are just one of the things that play to that ideology. You cannot discuss anything anymore if it offends someone, so the way to kill free speech is to cater to feelings, which is bullshit.

I would generalize the need for conservative thought to the need for freedom of expression. If people have the freedom to say what they think this will inevitably lead to at least some people expressing conservative thought. At the same time it will also lead to some expressing more liberal positions. I could go into more detail about why I think freedom of expression is necessary for a functional society, but you probably already know why.

I completely agree about feminism's influence in the media, its pretty hard to deny the various influences that movement has had. That said, I don't want to say women think emotionally without having seen some evidence. Personal experiences can be valuable, but since the group of women an individual has contact over their lifetime is not necessarily representative of women as a whole, I'd like to see some studies or something along those lines to back it up before I make that claim. Although I'm sure such a study would be discarded as sexist if it ever got press outside the scientific community. Also I have personally met a number of women who don't act particularly emotionally, and a number of men who can't think through something logically if their lives depended on it.

Written by ixsetf on 07.06.2015 at 05:12

Written by Rasputin on 06.06.2015 at 21:20
Interesting, I never had that issue with anti-feminist/anti-LGBT issue, maybe because I am anti to both

You are correct, there is no superior position either liberal or conservative, but I would have to say that in order to have a functional society a certain dose of conservative thought is necessary, instead of "do what I like." It may not be direct relation to Feminism, but is one by proxy. Women have taken a lot of control, at least in the media, regardless of what they say, and then a lot of it is passed down through the education system. Not to play gender bias, but women do tend to lean towards the emotion more, and to me that is obvious in online discussions, discussions in person, and even they themselves admit that they are emotional. Trigger-warnings are just one of the things that play to that ideology. You cannot discuss anything anymore if it offends someone, so the way to kill free speech is to cater to feelings, which is bullshit.

I would generalize the need for conservative thought to the need for freedom of expression. If people have the freedom to say what they think this will inevitably lead to at least some people expressing conservative thought. At the same time it will also lead to some expressing more liberal positions. I could go into more detail about why I think freedom of expression is necessary for a functional society, but you probably already know why.

I completely agree about feminism's influence in the media, its pretty hard to deny the various influences that movement has had. That said, I don't want to say women think emotionally without having seen some evidence. Personal experiences can be valuable, but since the group of women an individual has contact over their lifetime is not necessarily representative of women as a whole, I'd like to see some studies or something along those lines to back it up before I make that claim. Although I'm sure such a study would be discarded as sexist if it ever got press outside the scientific community. Also I have personally met a number of women who don't act particularly emotionally, and a number of men who can't think through something logically if their lives depended on it.

There needs to be a balance, but the irony is that the liberal position which allegedly was supposed to be open and argue for freedom of speech is the first one now to shut down the conversation and put a plug in freedom of speech. This now transcends feminism, it is everywhere now. Looking at the USA, we have complete blockade of information when it comes to the racial issues (police shootings, riots and overall chaos). This now does not elaborate that there is no free press in the USA, since the media companies have to dance the dance of the Government, but to have another brake is bullshit.

I guess we have to elaborate on what "emotional" means and is. A person can be emotional without going into the usual/typical behavior that everyone expects. My thing is, and I am not trying to state that ALL women are like that, but the ones that I deal with or dealt with online and offline do seem to have those traits in different intervals. For instance, a person may not cry and moan and do the typical stuff we would expect, but would read something and take it personally more than a male would. This goes hand in hand with sensitivity and people issuing apologies on TV for offending someone, and I bet ya that the majority of the offended are female. Fun fact, the feminists are fighting for "free the nipple" meaning that they should be able to walk without a shirt and a bra, and the biggest advocates against that are women themselves, and of course conservative males, but it is the truth.

PS, this is the new shit that absolutely drives me nuts, and feminism is supporting this

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fbecoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

Written by Rasputin on 08.06.2015 at 21:30
There needs to be a balance, but the irony is that the liberal position which allegedly was supposed to be open and argue for freedom of speech is the first one now to shut down the conversation and put a plug in freedom of speech. This now transcends feminism, it is everywhere now. Looking at the USA, we have complete blockade of information when it comes to the racial issues (police shootings, riots and overall chaos). This now does not elaborate that there is no free press in the USA, since the media companies have to dance the dance of the Government, but to have another brake is bullshit.

I guess we have to elaborate on what "emotional" means and is. A person can be emotional without going into the usual/typical behavior that everyone expects. My thing is, and I am not trying to state that ALL women are like that, but the ones that I deal with or dealt with online and offline do seem to have those traits in different intervals. For instance, a person may not cry and moan and do the typical stuff we would expect, but would read something and take it personally more than a male would. This goes hand in hand with sensitivity and people issuing apologies on TV for offending someone, and I bet ya that the majority of the offended are female. Fun fact, the feminists are fighting for "free the nipple" meaning that they should be able to walk without a shirt and a bra, and the biggest advocates against that are women themselves, and of course conservative males, but it is the truth.

PS, this is the new shit that absolutely drives me nuts, and feminism is supporting this

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fbecoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

I agree that some liberals are going too far with their reactions to ideas that offend them. Its particularly disappointing to me because it is often in direct opposition to what they claim to stand for.

That said, I don't think this is exclusively a liberal problem, too often I've seen conservatives call for the expulsion of all Muslims from the United States. This clearly would be in violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment. So its not only liberals who threaten these freedoms. So having more conservative thought I don't think would necessarily make us more free, what we need is more moderate thought guided by reason and not emotion.

Again about the women being more emotional thing, while you personal experience might make you more likely to believe women are more likely to be emotional, I am reluctant to take positions like that based on personal experience. For example I often see people say certain brands of computers or whatever are really reliable or really unreliable because they never had one that broke or most of the ones they owned broke, but usually its just based off luck. If I saw a scientific study that suggested women thought more emotionally I would be a lot more likely to believe it.

I personally think the thing about walking around topless really dumb. I don't think a lot of women understand why their breasts are looked at sexually, since they don't see men's chests as sexual. Rather than acknowledging that androphilia and gynephilia are different (this means sexual attraction to men and attraction to women) it seems many people think they have to mirror each other and any time they don't it's because of society.

As for the so called 'transabled' thing, there is already a name for it, "Body integrity identity disorder". From the article it seems as if even feminists are very skeptical of this rebranding. As far as I'm concerned, if these people really want to cut off their arms or whatever, they can go ahead and do it. As long as they don't expect the taxpayer to give them disability benefits.

Written by ixsetf on 08.06.2015 at 23:33

Written by Rasputin on 08.06.2015 at 21:30
There needs to be a balance, but the irony is that the liberal position which allegedly was supposed to be open and argue for freedom of speech is the first one now to shut down the conversation and put a plug in freedom of speech. This now transcends feminism, it is everywhere now. Looking at the USA, we have complete blockade of information when it comes to the racial issues (police shootings, riots and overall chaos). This now does not elaborate that there is no free press in the USA, since the media companies have to dance the dance of the Government, but to have another brake is bullshit.

I guess we have to elaborate on what "emotional" means and is. A person can be emotional without going into the usual/typical behavior that everyone expects. My thing is, and I am not trying to state that ALL women are like that, but the ones that I deal with or dealt with online and offline do seem to have those traits in different intervals. For instance, a person may not cry and moan and do the typical stuff we would expect, but would read something and take it personally more than a male would. This goes hand in hand with sensitivity and people issuing apologies on TV for offending someone, and I bet ya that the majority of the offended are female. Fun fact, the feminists are fighting for "free the nipple" meaning that they should be able to walk without a shirt and a bra, and the biggest advocates against that are women themselves, and of course conservative males, but it is the truth.

PS, this is the new shit that absolutely drives me nuts, and feminism is supporting this

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fbecoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

I agree that some liberals are going too far with their reactions to ideas that offend them. Its particularly disappointing to me because it is often in direct opposition to what they claim to stand for.

That said, I don't think this is exclusively a liberal problem, too often I've seen conservatives call for the expulsion of all Muslims from the United States. This clearly would be in violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment. So its not only liberals who threaten these freedoms. So having more conservative thought I don't think would necessarily make us more free, what we need is more moderate thought guided by reason and not emotion.

Again about the women being more emotional thing, while you personal experience might make you more likely to believe women are more likely to be emotional, I am reluctant to take positions like that based on personal experience. For example I often see people say certain brands of computers or whatever are really reliable or really unreliable because they never had one that broke or most of the ones they owned broke, but usually its just based off luck. If I saw a scientific study that suggested women thought more emotionally I would be a lot more likely to believe it.

I personally think the thing about walking around topless really dumb. I don't think a lot of women understand why their breasts are looked at sexually, since they don't see men's chests as sexual. Rather than acknowledging that androphilia and gynephilia are different (this means sexual attraction to men and attraction to women) it seems many people think they have to mirror each other and any time they don't it's because of society.

As for the so called 'transabled' thing, there is already a name for it, "Body integrity identity disorder". From the article it seems as if even feminists are very skeptical of this rebranding. As far as I'm concerned, if these people really want to cut off their arms or whatever, they can go ahead and do it. As long as they don't expect the taxpayer to give them disability benefits.

Exactly. They want to be free to speak their mind, however they at the same time want to shut down the opposing side, by blocking dialogue. It is very stupid and regressive.

Uh, Islam, another favorite topic of mine. If you want, we can talk about that in the other topic "Islam" where you will see where I stand on it. While I agree with you that the freedom of religion should be granted, I don't Islam counts, simply because it is a cult of death. If we accept Islam then we have to let Charles Manson and anyone other cultist out there to roam free, because that is what is going on.

I would like to see a study myself, since the only scientific thing that I can find is that we think different, because women have more gray matter than men. That being said, maybe it is not maybe the emotional thing, it is maybe the cognitive process that masks itself as emotional.

Again, I agree with you, it baffles the fuck out of me that women generally have no idea what sexuality and perceptions actually are. The feminist group is known for this, because they want to police sexuality, and basically "train" men when to compliment them and treat them as sex objects and when not to. I heard from many feminists that the reason why they are against catcalling is not necessarily being treated as a piece of meat, rather they are afraid that the man who is giving them compliments, regardless how rude or polite will rape them. I was WTF? This of course conveniently does not fit in "casual sex" since I guess it is more logical to fuck a total stranger and not be afraid to get raped, then to be whistled at in broad daylight by some manual laborer fixing a pothole.

Unfortunately, I think we the taxpayers will take a hit as usual, because if we do not support their "illness" that will be discrimination. I am fed up with LGBTQRSTXYZ issues, it is getting beyond stupid and costly.

Http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs

Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt has been asked to resign from his position after he made the following comments about women in the lab "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls ? three things happen when they are in the lab ? You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry". While I don't agree with what the guy is saying, I am disappointed with the level of hatred some have for this man, his contributions to science likely saved a number of lives. If we as a society don't permit viewpoints from both sides of this issue, we can never have a discussion, and we can never move forward.

Just watched "Jurassic World", a mediocre. First thing that came to mind after I left the film was (of course) Hitchcock's conservative film "The Birds", the female protagonist went through the same charterer development as Melanie. "Jurassic World" was perhaps to a lesser degree conservative (I'm referring to the cage scene) - but "Jurassic World" was an anti-feminist conservative film which is actually refreshing in today's cinema.
I loved the close-up on the high-heels, it could be interpreted in several ways. The ending line was a jab at modern feminism and where it's taking society (1.2 kids per couple, couples that don't want kids).

Written by Candlemass on 19.06.2015 at 11:53
The ending line was a jab at modern feminism and where it's taking society (1.2 kids per couple, couples that don't want kids).

What's the matter with that? Human overpopulation is destroying this planet.

Written by Angelic Storm on 19.06.2015 at 12:17

Written by Candlemass on 19.06.2015 at 11:53
The ending line was a jab at modern feminism and where it's taking society (1.2 kids per couple, couples that don't want kids).

What's the matter with that? Human overpopulation is destroying this planet.

Is it really? While I agree with you that maybe Muslim countries, and the countries where poverty is extreme should maybe have less kids, I think that the issue with children lies within the Western society, which could be to an extent correlated to the rise of Feminism, and education. Sweden for instance will vanish as a country in less than a 100 years, because the Feminists have taken control over the reproduction monologue and at the same time they have undermined normal and healthy relationships between a man and a woman to such an extent that the new trend in Sweden is importing women from Asia, because the Swedish women are just nuts.

Regardless what liberals might think (or not think for that matter) a familial unit is the building block of any society, and once you destroy that, you have no society and you have no future, or should I say the world has no future. We live in a dangerous world where people believe that a family unit is obsolete, and unfortunately it is going that way, where we don't have normal families (one man, one woman, and kids) what we have is mixed marriage families, high rates of divorce and a lot of displaced kids that grow up with no proper schooling, morals or ethics instilled in them.

What feminism is doing, at least here in the USA, is creating a class struggle, that turns into a war between sexes, where the mythical Patriarchy controls everything, and thus, everything associated with a male must be if not destroyed/replaced or at least modified where it is thrown into a state of inertia.

Written by Rasputin on 19.06.2015 at 14:51

A lot of ignorance

Ok, first of all, who exactly is attempting to destroy the family as a unit? Could you give some citations for this inane idea you're having that families are becoming obsolete? People are going to breed both with or without the existence of feminism, and to think otherwise is simply foolish. It's not as if feminists are some radical military organization going around castrating men and harvesting sperm or something. You are focusing on a pretty limited offshoot of feminism and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion (and if I'm wrong, prove me otherwise). There is going to be extremism in every movement, that is inevitable, but it would be simply nonsensical of someone to not focus on the more moderate elements within it as well that are actually focused on getting things done in a way that promotes both equity and justice.

I love how you act as if a family is the moral and social bedrock of society. As if without that lovely little thing called "tradition," children are not going to be instilled with proper moral and cultural values and will simply devolve back into the primordial soup. God forbid newer generations are exposed to alternative perspectives of gender and class and are actually encouraged to form their own conclusions rather than passively accepting what millenia of history have taught them to believe is a "proper" way of social organization. This is part of the reason why a good amount of younger Americans have absolutely terrible critical thinking skills, because so many parents are hell bent on keeping them boxed within this little bubble of conservatism and not encouraging the holding of any views found outside of that bubble.

And as far as "mythical" patriarchy... it's anything but. Women holding more jobs, having voting rights, etc. is not necessarily a display of gender equality and the absence of sexism, just as minorities doing so is not evident of the absence of racism. The strict regulation of birth control that those on the right often encourage, as well as the absolutely deranged opinion MANY people still have that if a woman is scantily clad in society, she's inviting rape to her, are just a few examples of how widespread the notion of women needing to "stay in their place" is, with men dictating the specifics of that place. Just recently in some state in the U.S. there were calls to arrest women for wearing yoga pants too many times in public for fuck's sake. If that's not patriarchy, I'm not sure what is, and to be honest if you haven't noticed that these attitudes are all still here, and that they still greatly affect our current sociopolitical condition, you're obviously not paying attention.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 19.06.2015 at 15:39

Written by Rasputin on 19.06.2015 at 14:51

A lot of ignorance

Ok, first of all, who exactly is attempting to destroy the family as a unit? Could you give some citations for this inane idea you're having that families are becoming obsolete? People are going to breed both with or without the existence of feminism, and to think otherwise is simply foolish. It's not as if feminists are some radical military organization going around castrating men and harvesting sperm or something. You are focusing on a pretty limited offshoot of feminism and blowing it way the fuck out of proportion (and if I'm wrong, prove me otherwise). There is going to be extremism in every movement, that is inevitable, but it would be simply nonsensical of someone to not focus on the more moderate elements within it as well that are actually focused on getting things done in a way that promotes both equity and justice.

I love how you act as if a family is the moral and social bedrock of society. As if without that lovely little thing called "tradition," children are not going to be instilled with proper moral and cultural values and will simply devolve back into the primordial soup. God forbid newer generations are exposed to alternative perspectives of gender and class and are actually encouraged to form their own conclusions rather than passively accepting what millenia of history have taught them to believe is a "proper" way of social organization. This is part of the reason why a good amount of younger Americans have absolutely terrible critical thinking skills, because so many parents are hell bent on keeping them boxed within this little bubble of conservatism and not encouraging the holding of any views found outside of that bubble.

And as far as "mythical" patriarchy... it's anything but. Women holding more jobs, having voting rights, etc. is not necessarily a display of gender equality and the absence of sexism, just as minorities doing so is not evident of the absence of racism. The strict regulation of birth control that those on the right often encourage, as well as the absolutely deranged opinion MANY people still have that if a woman is scantily clad in society, she's inviting rape to her, are just a few examples of how widespread the notion of women needing to "stay in their place" is, with men dictating the specifics of that place. Just recently in some state in the U.S. there were calls to arrest women for wearing yoga pants too many times in public for fuck's sake. If that's not patriarchy, I'm not sure what is, and to be honest if you haven't noticed that these attitudes are all still here, and that they still greatly affect our current sociopolitical condition, you're obviously not paying attention.

The current trends in society, driven by the left to include the feminist bullshit. You live in the USA correct? How many "nuclear" families do you have where you live? How many are there in the USA? Less and less every year. You have mixed marriages, more divorces, more single mothers than ever before. Limited offshoot of feminism? Are you blind? I am yet to see anything that is not radical and batshit crazy. From Emma Watson, to Anita Sarkesian (one of a 100 most influential people according to Times magazine), from commercials during Superbowl (Sorry, It's a boy), to Single Mother commercials for Father's Day, the fight to remove Father's day, the fight to suspend due process in case of rape charges, the sex contracts in California where even if you fill out the "sex cards" a guy can still be charged with rape, threats to MRA meetings to include bombings and violence, Trigger Warnings, Slut Shaming, Victim Blaming, Misandry, so on and so forth. It is your illusion of feminism that is found lacking. You can find as many "moderate" Feminists as you can Muslims, and guess what, they just sit and wait and do nothing while a wave after wave of insanity continues. Women Studies classes that are becoming even more radical and militant, and indoctrinating hundreds and hundreds of women to see the world through their fucked up lens, which in turn creates conflict with men. Feminism does not stand for equality and justice, if it ever did. Maybe in its inception, it had the fight for the right to vote and other things, but now that all those battles are won, at least in the USA and most Western Countries, their fight has been reduced to spouting nonsense and trying to ban words like "bossy" because they have nothing better to do. Aside from Mrs. Sommers from the "Factual Feminist" podcasts, I am yet to see another feminist aside maybe from Camille that while being a Feminist herself is very critical of what feminism has become and is becoming, and is pretty much hated and loved at the same time. Feminism is about power and domination, because it is a class struggle ideology, so in order for you to be empowered is by proxy to dominate the one who has the alleged power, and in this case are the males.

How do you think we had societies? Without building blocks? And what is the building block of a society? You have the individual, sure, but if you want to continue to have a society you have to reproduce, so you find a mate, and create a family unit, where all the values, morals and ethics are transmitted to the child, for right and for wrong. And it continues to build and grow. I am not alone in the world to see that the younger generations have no attention spans, no desire to work, no ethics, only seek instant gratification and believe that the world owes them something, and that is a direct byproduct of the hyperconsumer society where even if we had a normal familial unit, parents are not able to raise their children because of the influence of the fucked up media, ill society and working 2 jobs each just to stay afloat. There is nothing wrong with seeing an alternative view of life, but the new generations have no critical skills not because of the parents, but because of the way the society is right now and it's influence on them. Drugs, sex, alcohol are just some of the things that children are exposed to sooner and sooner, thanks to the advancement in technology and this "alternative" environment you keep advertising. Different views on gender? You are either a man, or you are a woman, you either accept that there a masculine traits and feminine traits or you don't. The only thing that "Gender Studies" bullshit has done is made people even more confused on who they are and what they are, and you have liberals who are trying to project LGBT things on kids who have no concepts of what sex is, but hey, brave new world. Let's send kids to LGBT parades and let them cross dress and encourage sexual confusion where there is none, because that is so empowering and liberating right? Bullshit. LGBT backed up by the feminist front is trying so hard to justify its deviant existence that they would go to any lengths to make them look like "normal." When a child is born with two heads and 3 arms, that is not normal, when a child is born with Autism, Down Syndrome, Paraplegia or something else that is not normal, be it normative or not. So we can all drink the liberal cool aid, and say, everything is normal now, and there should be no lines. Transgender, transabled, transracial are just some of the lovely new brave ideas which we got, and it will not stop there. We have Beta males, hipsters, metrosexuals, cuckolds and other interesting things that are not advancing the society, men, and relationships, they are making an even great mess of things. If you find it empowering to shove feathers in your ass, chop of your dick, get a boob job and be anally violated by Shrek, that is your choice, but that should never be the standard and norm, and no, normative or not, it is not fucking normal or productive.

Women got the rights they fought for, now they want more rights. Reproductive rights? You mean abortion? If you want to fuck you must suffer the consequence, and abortion as birth control is not something I endorse. Abortion should be used in a case of rape, incest, child being sick, fear of mother dying etc, not for anything else. I am a man, and to hand over the control to the woman as what to do with my child is bullshit, regardless if she is carrying it. It took two of us to make it, and it should be two of us to decide what to do, not "it is my body." And she is right, it is her body, until she got into that contract of let's have sex, and if the child is conceived you waive your rights for the benefit of the child would you like that child or not, because if you did not want kids, you should have been more careful, used more protection or not fucked everyone you meet. Just recently a man in NY got cited for "manspreading" and just recently you have female senators preparing bills to override due process in the case of rape, by giving all power to the woman and making her word law, in the light of recent events with College rape hoaxes. There is not such thing as rape culture, unless you go to Muslim countries and parts of Africa. 1 in 4 women to be raped in USA in their lifetime is a bullshit statistic that your feminist are propagating through Gender Studies and the internet, and more of dumbfucks are believing them. So, yes, we have a problem. The phrase "Patriarchy" is offensive as hell, and if we would replace the words with lets say Jews, the result would be quite interesting, which proves that it is hate movement, driven by emotion and belief not logic and common sense, but I think these words will be wasted on you, like my three paragraphs are, and to be honest I don't give a shit. If you want to live in your little liberal heaven, you go for it, because the communes sound so appealing to the blind, but don't drag me and the rest of us who see the issue at hand, and are not afraid to speak out, because more and more men are being pussy whipped and shamed for being men.

Written by Rasputin on 20.06.2015 at 00:14

The phrase "Patriarchy" is offensive as hell, and if we would replace the words with lets say Jews, the result would be quite interesting, which proves that it is hate movement, driven by emotion and belief not logic and common sense, but I think these words will be wasted on you, like my three paragraphs are, and to be honest I don't give a shit. If you want to live in your little liberal heaven, you go for it, because the communes sound so appealing to the blind, but don't drag me and the rest of us who see the issue at hand, and are not afraid to speak out, because more and more men are being pussy whipped and shamed for being men.

I was considering for a second what to reply to specifically out of that wall of text, but I think this right here pretty much sums up where you're coming from quite well. "Patriarchy" is offensive as hell? Welcome to reality, where no one ever said that the truth was going to be catered to your desires. It doesn't take a genius to study history and realize that for roughly the past 5,000 years societies have been primarily male dominated, consequently leading to the subjugation of women and a lack of a significant voice for them in political systems. Feminism set out to change that. Has it accomplished some of the goals it initially had in mind? Perhaps. Has it gotten extreme in some of its modern aspects? Most likely so, and I don't think that I was arguing with that. But it's interesting to me why you might be opposed to it, because the terms you use, such as that the LGBT movement has a "deviant existence," that men "are being pussy whipped," and that embracing alternative views of gender and sexual identity is "not fucking normal or productive" displays to me a large amount of intolerance on your part, likely manifesting itself as misogyny and/or homophobia. And quite frankly I think that displays far more about where your head is at than it does those movements themselves.

Also, I respond to each debate over things such as this on the basis of what I feel is right, which varies on a case by case basis, not to adhere to any sort of pre-established political affiliation. So I think it's pretty telling that, without me even proclaiming myself as of any particular ideology, you use the first opportunity you get to jump on me and condemn me as "blind" and "living in a liberal heaven."

Written by Rasputin on 19.06.2015 at 14:51
Sweden for instance will vanish as a country in less than a 100 years, because the Feminists have taken control over the reproduction monologue and at the same time they have undermined normal and healthy relationships between a man and a woman to such an extent that the new trend in Sweden is importing women from Asia, because the Swedish women are just nuts.

This doesn't seem accurate to me, except for the period between 1997-2001 Sweden's birthrate has exceeded its death rate and in recent years the rate of population growth seems to be increasing. Would you please explain how feminism in Sweden is supposed to make the country disappear within 100 years?

Written by Auntie Sahar on 20.06.2015 at 01:48

Written by Rasputin on 20.06.2015 at 00:14

The phrase "Patriarchy" is offensive as hell, and if we would replace the words with lets say Jews, the result would be quite interesting, which proves that it is hate movement, driven by emotion and belief not logic and common sense, but I think these words will be wasted on you, like my three paragraphs are, and to be honest I don't give a shit. If you want to live in your little liberal heaven, you go for it, because the communes sound so appealing to the blind, but don't drag me and the rest of us who see the issue at hand, and are not afraid to speak out, because more and more men are being pussy whipped and shamed for being men.

I was considering for a second what to reply to specifically out of that wall of text, but I think this right here pretty much sums up where you're coming from quite well. "Patriarchy" is offensive as hell? Welcome to reality, where no one ever said that the truth was going to be catered to your desires. It doesn't take a genius to study history and realize that for roughly the past 5,000 years societies have been primarily male dominated, consequently leading to the subjugation of women and a lack of a significant voice for them in political systems. Feminism set out to change that. Has it accomplished some of the goals it initially had in mind? Perhaps. Has it gotten extreme in some of its modern aspects? Most likely so, and I don't think that I was arguing with that. But it's interesting to me why you might be opposed to it, because the terms you use, such as that the LGBT movement has a "deviant existence," that men "are being pussy whipped," and that embracing alternative views of gender and sexual identity is "not fucking normal or productive" displays to me a large amount of intolerance on your part, likely manifesting itself as misogyny and/or homophobia. And quite frankly I think that displays far more about where your head is at than it does those movements themselves.

Also, I respond to each debate over things such as this on the basis of what I feel is right, which varies on a case by case basis, not to adhere to any sort of pre-established political affiliation. So I think it's pretty telling that, without me even proclaiming myself as of any particular ideology, you use the first opportunity you get to jump on me and condemn me as "blind" and "living in a liberal heaven."

Patriarchy does not exist, it is hate speech, nothing more. The Feminists created a boogeyman to hunt, and in it they listed ALL MEN as their enemy, because we are the Patriarchy, even if we do not know it. Not to mention "micro-aggressions" and other bullshit they keep spewing and serving as a fact. Hmm, I wonder why most societies where male dominated, is it because women are weaker than men, is it because they did not mind being subservient despite what they are saying now, is it because that the matriarchal governed society does not work in the long run because it cannot escape and advance beyond hand-mouth mechanism, is it because women had covert power over the years and enjoyed the accolades in the safety of the home while men bled and died for their honor, for the ability to reproduce and propel their genes into the future. During the middle ages we had "courtly love" which later evolved into something much greater, like White Feather movement and others. And what has the female side brought to the equation after emancipation? not a goddamn thing, except bitching, moaning, being "triggered," being victims...

Would you like it or not LGBT individuals are abnormal as I explained before, and more and more physically and mentally handicapped individuals like transabled or now transracial are coming out of the shadow under the banner of "brave, courageous, empowering, groundbreaking" and waving their stupidity proudly.

The things that you are fighting for are coming from the liberal front. And of course, you are also utilizing their terminology, if you disagree with Islam and have a problem with them, that is Islamophobia, if you disagree with homosexuality and other deviations you must be a homophobe, if you are against Feminism you must be a bigot and a misogynist. I hate to break it to you, but those words are nothing but ad hominems and red herrings, and they are there in place to block and dismiss any opposition and while they might work on some other people, they don't work on me.

As you so wonderfully stated, the world has been a certain way for 5000 years, and in the case of gender, I am certain that men should act a certain way to be men, and not be IT which this new ideology that you support is actually doing. It is hard enough growing up with the certain standards, now on top of that, all the mixed messages and arguments against what femininity is and what masculinity is, is not only counterproductive but it is creating even more strife and stress on people. Feminism, radical feminism is gaining more traction in schools and universities and the way for them to destroy this mythical "Patriarchy" is to destroy the concept of what man is, and in return we have Beta males, metrosexuals, cuckolds and a plethora of god only those what. If you want to live in a world filled with freaks and IT's be my guest, this individual does not.

Written by ixsetf on 20.06.2015 at 20:15

Written by Rasputin on 19.06.2015 at 14:51
Sweden for instance will vanish as a country in less than a 100 years, because the Feminists have taken control over the reproduction monologue and at the same time they have undermined normal and healthy relationships between a man and a woman to such an extent that the new trend in Sweden is importing women from Asia, because the Swedish women are just nuts.

This doesn't seem accurate to me, except for the period between 1997-2001 Sweden's birthrate has exceeded its death rate and in recent years the rate of population growth seems to be increasing. Would you please explain how feminism in Sweden is supposed to make the country disappear within 100 years?

Are those numbers demonstrative of actual Swedish people, or do they account for the immigrants as well, since there is the answer to your question. It is not the actual Swedes reproducing, but the people who immigrated there, especially the Muslims. Feminism killed marriages and relationships, because their women and their colleges are even more radical than the radical feminists in Canada. We are talking about a country where the Political Correctness and the liberal idea has been pushed to such limits that I cannot believe. Sweden wants to cure the issue with ISIS by giving former or current terrorist Psychological help and jobs, because they are terrorists because they don't have any jobs. Google just some new trends and gender battles that have been going on in Sweden, and you will find interesting stuff there. Now, one thing that has very little to do with feminism is the education, it is been the trend so far, that more educated people have less children, so while Feminism encouraged women to attend school and get degrees and jobs, it by proxy created a problem where fertile women are not getting married and popping kids until they have already passed the point of no return, because on average women finish their schooling and start careers around 27-33 years of age, so marriage and kids are not in the forefront. It is their choice, I respect it, may not necessarily find it beneficial, but this is the problem with developed countries not just Sweden.

Interesting little rant that brings up a lot of good points.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

I don't think it's productive or even ethical to engage in a serious discussion with Rasputin (and thus legitimise his stance), but he did almost understand something about the kind of "feminism" I advocate: I do indeed seek to destroy traditional family units and gender roles, and society absolutely will be the better for it. Or, to be more accurate: the legal, political, cultural, social, financial (and whatever) support for the ideological hegemony must be smashed. If your precious "traditional family, "real men" and "normal relationships" need to be propped up with physical violence by the state and by cultural indoctrination, I fail to see their natural, God-given vitality. The idea is not that people should not identify as traditional men and women, or form families. (Though the "traditional family" you so value is a contingent historical phenomenon unknown in many other periods and cultures.) The idea is that people should choose, as freely a possible, the kind of identity and social organisation they wish to cultivate.

For instance, when you dismantle the marriage institution into its bare essentials - a contract determining certain rights and responsibilities - and do not restrict the gender (or number) of participants, you are not promoting new models at the expense of the "normal" model. You are leveling the playing field and letting people choose the models that work for them in today's society. It's okay if they choose the nebulous "traditional model", whatever that is - and most people do. I did. The point is, its monopoly is no longer enforced artificially, and so the alternatives live and die by what they can actually offer people.

Of course, the same is true in reverse, and if there was a militant feminist conspiracy to actively hamper the traditional model, it would need to be equally smashed. Perhaps such individuals exist, and certainly the media is as stupid as the majority of humanity, but it is not a very realistic threat. I have never met a feminist who begrudged me my choices or tried telling me what to do. (I have a wife and a baby.)

If the conservative values you promote cannot stand on their own, on equal terms with other alternatives for people to choose (or grow into), they do start to seem obsolete. However, I have no reason to share your paranoia: people are doing better than ever, every study indicates it is better to grow up as a child now than fifty years ago, and the majority of people form heterosexual family units. As in all your arguments, you rely on an assumption of dark times that need to be blamed on someone. When you look around you and realise the world is doing pretty good (there is always trouble, but no more now than on average) and the future is bright, much of your bullshit loses its motivation.

The typical argument you would level against me is that traditional family units are necessary for the welfare of society, and thus the state should interfere. But that is extremely speculative and nebulous and does not have anywhere near enough scientific credibility to take violent, authoritarian measures. Human societies tend to adapt to their changing circumstances, and I am not convinced that a bunch of old men trying to steer society according to their ideological and scientific beliefs would do better than natural development.

To clarify my last paragraph:

Society is made up of individuals. The good of a society, then, is the good of its members. And broadly speaking, the good of an individual is their happiness. I think it's fair to say, then, that the purpose of society is to promote happiness. A society is doing well when its members are happy.

Now, there are cases where the happiness of one harms the happiness of others. There is a certain line which society draws to justify their intervention. In authoritarian societies, the freedom of choice is a very narrow sphere, and in liberal societies the interference is minimal. However, if we keep in mind the purpose of society, I think it's a good rule of thumb that individuals are best qualified to make the choices that work for them and make them happy. We don't always know what's best for us, but I probably know what's good for me better than some government official, most of the time. Any political solution is fallible and imperfect, but you run a much lower risk of disaster when you decentralise the decision-making and give people responsibility for their own choices. Authoritarian rule is simply not very effective or reliable in promoting happiness in a modern society, in peace-time.

So we should let people make the choices that work in their situation and make them happy, and as a consequence the overall happiness of society is increased. And there really should be no higher goal. This is liberalism, perfectly compatible with a personal appreciation for traditional values and practices, and any other use of "liberal" to signify certain preferences is an abuse of the term and only serves to make you look dumb.

Written by Rasputin on 21.06.2015 at 14:39

Interesting little rant that brings up a lot of good points.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

It's interesting, but he relies on research that some may consider questionable (I'm referring to my unread 'Delusions of Gender' which is sitting for ages on my shelf).

I do agree that feminists who argue that a genderless society will make people happier because they can choose what fits them better is not as simple and straight forward as presented. They seem to implicitly assume that people come with a hard-coded "happy" function and they found the input to optimize its output, that the distribution is somehow equal between the two extremes. In the article you linked the author argues the coding is different and hence our paths to "happiness" are too, different.

Trying to separate gender and biology in practice and not only conceptually, may be challenging in light of embodied cognition. Our minds do not develop separately from our physical surrounding, interactions and our own bodies.

I've seen women do what men do and wise-versa, but still keep their femininity. That is what personally gets to me. How to have sex in a 'genderless' society. How the does attraction even look like if it even exists anymore. I'm deeply skeptic of modern feminism and I fail to see the point of it.

Another book I have on my shelf is "The Left Hand of Darkness", will get to it some day.

Written by Rasputin on 21.06.2015 at 10:05

The things that you are fighting for are coming from the liberal front. And of course, you are also utilizing their terminology, if you disagree with Islam and have a problem with them, that is Islamophobia, if you disagree with homosexuality and other deviations you must be a homophobe, if you are against Feminism you must be a bigot and a misogynist. I hate to break it to you, but those words are nothing but ad hominems and red herrings, and they are there in place to block and dismiss any opposition and while they might work on some other people, they don't work on me.

You're really jumping off the deep end here. People do not use terms such as that simply because you disagree with them, they use it in response to things you say that convey an underlying contempt for the group(s) in question. I didn't call you those things because "I can't handle the truth, I want to dismiss opposition," I did because that is what the words you are using are strongly implying. You refer to LGBT people as "freaks" and "deviants." What the hell else is someone supposed to take away from terms with such negative connotations other than that you severely dislike those people, with dislike more often than not being the result of fear through the vector of misunderstanding. Not to mention you refer to men who support feminist ideology, rather than being "real men" and acting as strong familial leaders, as being "pussy whipped," which is an extremely sexist statement that suggests you believe that women are meant to be in inherently submissive roles to men and are fundamentally incapable of taking roles as such familial leaders upon themselves. And if you do not want me to draw conclusions such as this from the things you say, then maybe you should be a little more careful about the language you use and give more thought to its implications.

Written by IronAngel on 21.06.2015 at 16:26

The typical argument you would level against me is that traditional family units are necessary for the welfare of society, and thus the state should interfere. But that is extremely speculative and nebulous and does not have anywhere near enough scientific credibility to take violent, authoritarian measures. Human societies tend to adapt to their changing circumstances, and I am not convinced that a bunch of old men trying to steer society according to their ideological and scientific beliefs would do better than natural development.

And this is perhaps the greatest irony: some people refer to these new conceptions of gender identity and family structures as "unnatural," when what's really even more unnatural is to attempt to halt the basic development of new ideas and the ability of people to choose between both the old and the new as civilized beings. If anything I find that to be an insult to human intelligence, this idea that people who choose these alternative lifestyles do so not because they have a firm understanding of what would be better for them, but because they're deranged, morally corrupt, etc. And as far as steering society in a positive direction, as those who make such statements often claim to be their intent, that is an attitude that is not at all progressive, but one that is actually extremely regressive.

Written by Candlemass on 21.06.2015 at 19:04

Trying to separate gender and biology in practice and not only conceptually, may be challenging in light of embodied cognition. Our minds do not develop separately from our physical surrounding, interactions and our own bodies.

I agree, and I have no particular desire to see that go one way or the other. My point is more that we should let people explore these possibilities if they wish, and see if it works for them. Trends come and go; androgyny was hot for a while, but it seems to be losing some of its appeal in the mainstream (see: curvy girls and lumbersexuals). What I object to is artificially and violently (i.e. through legislation and the threat of violence for transgressions) propping up certain contingent, ideological models that ought to stand on their own feet. If the "traditional" family of husband the provider, wife the carer, and three children is really such a good model, it won't collapse just because it no longer holds enforced monopoly. (In practice, I am talking of things like divorce, contraception, same-sex marriage, equal support for stay-at-home dads and women working as vice versa, and in general the freedom to choose whatever hobby or way of dressing that pleases you, regardless of gender.)

Models that do not and cannot work in our society or within the limits of our biology will not gain mainstream popularity for very long, and so we don't really need to worry about them. We can shrug, maybe smirk in our smug arrogance, but there is really no need to take political action.

Written by IronAngel on 21.06.2015 at 22:27

I agree, and I have no particular desire to see that go one way or the other. My point is more that we should let people explore these possibilities if they wish, and see if it works for them. Trends come and go; androgyny was hot for a while, but it seems to be losing some of its appeal in the mainstream (see: curvy girls and lumbersexuals). What I object to is artificially and violently (i.e. through legislation and the threat of violence for transgressions) propping up certain contingent, ideological models that ought to stand on their own feet. If the "traditional" family of husband the provider, wife the carer, and three children is really such a good model, it won't collapse just because it no longer holds enforced monopoly. (In practice, I am talking of things like divorce, contraception, same-sex marriage, equal support for stay-at-home dads and women working as vice versa, and in general the freedom to choose whatever hobby or way of dressing that pleases you, regardless of gender.)

Models that do not and cannot work in our society or within the limits of our biology will not gain mainstream popularity for very long, and so we don't really need to worry about them. We can shrug, maybe smirk in our smug arrogance, but there is really no need to take political action.

If that's what you object to, it sounds like Putin's Russia. I think our generation have taken a turn on many issues like homosexuality and transgenders that our parent's generation had much more issues with. What I'm not sure of, is how uncomfortable people are in their gender roles and how serious they take them.

You have expressed, very well, a forceful sympathetic version that's relevant today.
Many people are not reacting well to certain versions of feminism and to a degree saying things like "I like women" which is a genuine self-expression feels under attack and that's what disturbing people, at least me.
That comes after promoting gender neutral education, unisex public toilet, etc.
I personally fail to see the point of unisex public toilet in the name of moral principles like "inclusiveness" or "diversity" which I feel nothing of, if anything, antagonized to in this context. I'm not interested in blurring the distinction because I'm attracted to women, however contingent that attraction may be (just like the rest of them) between male and female. The fact that some people are transgender or homosexuals does not change that.

Yeah. Somebody I know on another forum once complained that young girls are dressing up as women these days, and he is tricked into looking at them sexually. It made him feel guilty. Yes, that is a pretty silly problem, but the reaction was even sillier: he was accused of being part of a societal problem and that it was his fault for oogling women as if they were there for his viewing pleasure. As if there was something wrong with looking at and enjoying the opposite sex. Personally, I find great pleasure in looking at pretty women on the streets, especially in summertime. I love boobs. That's biology, and we should make no apologies for our sexuality. It is quite another thing to make inappropriate sexual advances.

As for unisex toilets, I wouldn't mind: not for any reason of inclusiveness, diversity or transgender concerns, but simply for fairness' sake. There are generally the same number of male and female toilets in a given venue, but women take longer so there's always a long line to theirs while the men's toilet might be half-empty. Unisex toilets would inconvenience men who've gotten used to no queues, for sure, but it's one of those things that just makes sense logistically and would be fair. I find urinals awkward anyway, whether there's a man or a woman breathing down my neck - and they could easily be tucked in a sheltered corner, as they usually are now. But really, for me it is a small matter of practicality rather than an obscure ideological question.

EDIT: And it's just the large, multi-booth public toilets. At least in Finland, plenty of public buildings have single toilets with a lock on the outer door, and even they are gendered. That makes no sense at all and only decreases the efficiency of those facilities. Like what, you can't go to a toilet because the previous user left the ring up/down? It's weird.

I was not thinking about queues...just that that one sex wants privacy from the other while going to a bathroom. Maybe women want privacy changing tampons and men while peeing. We tend to feel more comfortable around other men while doing men stuff...for obvious reasons that have to do with mating rituals and potential mates.

Written by IronAngel on 22.06.2015 at 11:34

Yeah. Somebody I know on another forum once complained that young girls are dressing up as women these days, and he is tricked into looking at them sexually. It made him feel guilty. Yes, that is a pretty silly problem, but the reaction was even sillier: he was accused of being part of a societal problem and that it was his fault for oogling women as if they were there for his viewing pleasure. As if there was something wrong with looking at and enjoying the opposite sex. Personally, I find great pleasure in looking at pretty women on the streets, especially in summertime. I love boobs. That's biology, and we should make no apologies for our sexuality. It is quite another thing to make inappropriate sexual advances.

Do you realize what you have just written? All of this would brand you as a stare-rapist, creeper and misogynist. LMAO, you just admitted sexually objectifying women, and that is a big no no among Feminists. Do me a favor, drop this paragraph to some American Feminist sites, let's see how long will you last.

According to modern feminism, it is your fault for oogling women, and everything is wrong by enjoying the opposite sex, because you are taking away their female agency by reducing them to a sex object. You need to control your sexuality buddy, you need to shut that part of your brain down, because Feminists want you to. We are not animals, so stop acting like one.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 21.06.2015 at 19:05

Written by Rasputin on 21.06.2015 at 10:05

The things that you are fighting for are coming from the liberal front. And of course, you are also utilizing their terminology, if you disagree with Islam and have a problem with them, that is Islamophobia, if you disagree with homosexuality and other deviations you must be a homophobe, if you are against Feminism you must be a bigot and a misogynist. I hate to break it to you, but those words are nothing but ad hominems and red herrings, and they are there in place to block and dismiss any opposition and while they might work on some other people, they don't work on me.

You're really jumping off the deep end here. People do not use terms such as that simply because you disagree with them, they use it in response to things you say that convey an underlying contempt for the group(s) in question. I didn't call you those things because "I can't handle the truth, I want to dismiss opposition," I did because that is what the words you are using are strongly implying. You refer to LGBT people as "freaks" and "deviants." What the hell else is someone supposed to take away from terms with such negative connotations other than that you severely dislike those people, with dislike more often than not being the result of fear through the vector of misunderstanding. Not to mention you refer to men who support feminist ideology, rather than being "real men" and acting as strong familial leaders, as being "pussy whipped," which is an extremely sexist statement that suggests you believe that women are meant to be in inherently submissive roles to men and are fundamentally incapable of taking roles as such familial leaders upon themselves. And if you do not want me to draw conclusions such as this from the things you say, then maybe you should be a little more careful about the language you use and give more thought to its implications.

The reason why LGBT and other bullshit is accepted is because of lobby. The reason it got removed from the list of mental disorders was because of the lobby. There is no science to back it up that it is fine, except that it occurs in nature, however, in nature it is a one time two time deal, not a partnership for the rest pf the life, and also, are we not supposed to elevate ourselves above animals? Then you hear the usual argument, that a human is an animal and we should do what we want, well, that is all nice and wonderful, but if everyone did what they wanted, the world would be in a constant state of war and chaos. What do you call a person with 3 arms? With 2 heads? With a tail? With some other disorder? They are called "freaks" because they do not look or behave like the majority of the people. Democracy is, or it was for right or wrong, the majority rule, so why the hell is the majority forced to accept the vast minority that not only wants equality but also wants an elevated/privileged status. For instance Feminism, for all their diatribe about equality and this that and the other, they want an elevated status. We want equality, we want equality- is what you hear, until you check their privilege that they had. What privilege you ask? Well, you have cases of divorce still, where the woman takes half of everything, sometimes even more than that and that is done by default. Women for the most part get the children during divorce, alimony, and other privileges, and all of it is based on the old time laws and rules that were in place to protect these allegedly oppressed women who were treated worse than slaves if you believe that. Females get reduced and shorter sentences, they rarely if ever get called rapists/pedophiles when they engage in a sexual intercourse with a minor, unlike their male counterparts. There are other things as well, but I have not time to list them all. Feminists want equality only to a point, only when it benefits them, when it does not, then it is an attack by the Patriarchy. I dare say that women are privileged far more than men, they just chose to pull out the insignificant shit like "outlaw the word bossy" no "stare rape" no "manspreading" to keep everyone distracted.

Tell me something, look at the world, why are societies ran by men? Why not a single one ran by a female can be found to flourish and prosper? Just a coincidence? I didn't say that women cannot have leadership roles, however their long term strategies and applications are not sustainable. If it was up to the feminist front, we would worry more about our feelings than reality. The reason why I said once before that I find women more emotional, is because of the shit that feminist do. I mean she gets triggered by reading something online, and huffs and puffs, writes blogs of how traumatic that was for her. We have real PTSD individuals, who have seen the worst possible shit on the planet, to include veterans, who take it and keep it to themselves, what is the feminist excuse? I would personally outlaw Gender Studies and Women Studies classes, because they are heavily politicized and geared against men, now more overtly than ever, and I recommend for the males to get educated on it, before it is too late. And the reason why I say they are pussy whipped it is because they are, those are all Beta males who clearly have read the definition of what feminism is, but are not realizing what that means in practice. And they are so scared of being shunned and labeled as a misogynist that they will play along to fit in, or play that card to maybe get some second pussy servings that Alphas tear apart. And since we are on the topic of biology and master/slave mechanics, one thing that I keep seeing is from the feminist front is the blindness to their own sexuality. One one side they are doing everything in their power to destroy the Alpha, to destroy what masculine means, and yet they cannot stop fapping to muscular strong Alpha male types. For all their bitching and wining, they want to be dominated, if not consciously, then subconsciously. And how do I know this, well...that is another story, no place to talk about my personal life.

Written by Candlemass on 21.06.2015 at 19:04

Written by Rasputin on 21.06.2015 at 14:39

Interesting little rant that brings up a lot of good points.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

It's interesting, but he relies on research that some may consider questionable (I'm referring to my unread 'Delusions of Gender' which is sitting for ages on my shelf).

I do agree that feminists who argue that a genderless society will make people happier because they can choose what fits them better is not as simple and straight forward as presented. They seem to implicitly assume that people come with a hard-coded "happy" function and they found the input to optimize its output, that the distribution is somehow equal between the two extremes. In the article you linked the author argues the coding is different and hence our paths to "happiness" are too, different.

Trying to separate gender and biology in practice and not only conceptually, may be challenging in light of embodied cognition. Our minds do not develop separately from our physical surrounding, interactions and our own bodies.

I've seen women do what men do and wise-versa, but still keep their femininity. That is what personally gets to me. How to have sex in a 'genderless' society. How the does attraction even look like if it even exists anymore. I'm deeply skeptic of modern feminism and I fail to see the point of it.

Another book I have on my shelf is "The Left Hand of Darkness", will get to it some day.

You guess is good as mine. I have no problem with new ideas, however, the idea has to have a point and be well thought off, but even then, if it appears to be a good idea, is every idea worth pursuing?

You see this is what gets me. We want a genderless society, right? But only to the expense of men, not women. Women can still be as feminine as they want, but men can't, so by the new plan, genderless actually constitutes -female based. Some feminists have issues with that as well, however they cannot say no, because if they speak out against it, or any part they do not like, they get attacked by their own. So I call feminism a religion for a reason.

Feminism also wants to control biology, and like I posted already, the Iron Angels behavior will not be tolerated in feminist dominated society. Basically, men should learn somehow to read minds and know when a female wants or does not want the attention. So if she is walking naked in street, she is doing it because she feels good, but not to attract attention I guess, yet FEMEN does it for both things I guess. Confusing as fuck if you ask me. So while natural and I would say normal human attraction, according to modern Feminism, it is sexist and oppressive, and it is part of the rape culture and stare rape. So, go ahead, be a man, but have no attraction for women, until we tell you to, and even if we tell you, and let you have sex with us, we can still sue you for rape and win, since we are making the laws where a woman's word is the law, and a man is nothing.

If it was truly about equality and fixing the problems, I would support it, but it is not, at all. There are exceptions, I know, but the modern/radical feminists have the power on dialogue and the moderate side keeps their mouths shut/

Written by Rasputin on 22.06.2015 at 23:21


Do you realize what you have just written? All of this would brand you as a stare-rapist, creeper and misogynist. LMAO, you just admitted sexually objectifying women, and that is a big no no among Feminists. Do me a favor, drop this paragraph to some American Feminist sites, let's see how long will you last.

According to modern feminism, it is your fault for oogling women, and everything is wrong by enjoying the opposite sex, because you are taking away their female agency by reducing them to a sex object. You need to control your sexuality buddy, you need to shut that part of your brain down, because Feminists want you to. We are not animals, so stop acting like one.

Then those "feminists" would be stupid and wrong. And I have never suggested the majority aren't: feminists are like any other people, and most people are fucking stupid. But your caricature is not very accurate; I have no doubt some populists would have that kneejerk reaction, but intelligent people wouldn't misuse terminology so.

Objectification, for example, does not mean treating someone as an object of your purposes - sexual or otherwise. It means reducing someone to an object, and recognizing in them no other value. It is what Kant's categorical imperative means: you mustn't treat another "merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." We are objects to each other, but that is not all we are. Simone de Beauvoir understood this: the human condition is the ambiguity of being a subject to oneself and an object to others. I seem to recall that she especially stressed this dualism in a sexual encounter, when one becomes aware of the other as a subject and oneself as an object of desire/pleasure. Do not claim that feminist theory is unaware of this. It is extremely probable that most uneducated individuals have misinterpreted this stuff, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

Your focus is continually on what other people say and believe. That should have little bearing on the topic: every feminist on the planet might be a terrible person twisting their ideology for their own nefarious purposes, but feministic arguments could still be entirely correct. You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.

Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 00:29
Then those "feminists" would be stupid and wrong. And I have never suggested the majority aren't: feminists are like any other people, and most people are fucking stupid. But your caricature is not very accurate; I have no doubt some populists would have that kneejerk reaction, but intelligent people wouldn't misuse terminology so.

Objectification, for example, does not mean treating someone as an object of your purposes - sexual or otherwise. It means reducing someone to an object, and recognizing in them no other value. It is what Kant's categorical imperative means: you mustn't treat another "merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." We are objects to each other, but that is not all we are. Simone de Beauvoir understood this: the human condition is the ambiguity of being a subject to oneself and an object to others. I seem to recall that she especially stressed this dualism in a sexual encounter, when one becomes aware of the other as a subject and oneself as an object of desire/pleasure. Do not claim that feminist theory is unaware of this. It is extremely probable that most uneducated individuals have misinterpreted this stuff, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

Your focus is continually on what other people say and believe. That should have little bearing on the topic: every feminist on the planet might be a terrible person twisting their ideology for their own nefarious purposes, but feministic arguments could still be entirely correct. You are at your strongest when you pick on the easy targets of supposed feminism in low-brow media, but the fact that they are wrong does not make you right, or feminism a bad idea. You have not presented any positive argument in your favor that hasn't been countered or wasn't compatible with feminism.

The "Object" of objectification isn't the same sort of object used in common speech, it is the philosophical definition meaning a thing being observed. Therefore the antonym of objectification in this context is "subjectification". Thus as the act of "looking at and enjoying the opposite sex" would count as observing the opposite sex, it counts as objectification. This definition isn't something I just made up, a number of feminist acquaintances have informed me this is the primary definition used in feminist theory.

Written by ixsetf on 23.06.2015 at 04:26

The "Object" of objectification isn't the same sort of object used in common speech, it is the philosophical definition meaning a thing being observed. Therefore the antonym of objectification in this context is "subjectification". Thus as the act of "looking at and enjoying the opposite sex" would count as observing the opposite sex, it counts as objectification. This definition isn't something I just made up, a number of feminist acquaintances have informed me this is the primary definition used in feminist theory.

Nor was I relying on everyday terminology; I thought my references to Kant and de Beauvoir established the post firmly in the philosophical discourse.

There are of course conflicting opinions on what objectification is and whether it is always bad. However, your definition certainly isn't correct; either you misunderstood your acquaintances or they were wrong. Martha Nussbaum lists several features of objectification, and while it is unclear from the article below how many criteria need to be met for something to count as objectification, the first item (instrumentality, e.g. being an instrument of sexual pleasure through watching) certainly isn't enough. This is Nussbaum's list:

1 instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
2 denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
3 inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
4 fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
5 violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
6 ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
7 denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

We are always tools for each other's purposes, moreso in some circumstances than others. When I want to buy stuff, the cashier is an instrument for my purposes. It becomes objectification of the problematic kind if I deny the cashier any value beyond that; if I discount his opinions on politics because he's just a cashier (and not due to any demonstrated ignorance), if I forget that he is a human being outside of the workplace too, that he has his own hopes and designs not centered around servicing me.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

That said, "objectification" is an unhelpful buzzword that is frequently misapplied and merely allows the speaker to forgo arguing why something is actually wrong. "But this is objectification, end of story!" If something really is, sure, but you might as well point out the exact features that make something "objectifying" and hence wrong. I prefer we stick to common-sense terms and make our arguments plain.

Written by IronAngel on 23.06.2015 at 12:54
That said, "objectification" is an unhelpful buzzword that is frequently misapplied and merely allows the speaker to forgo arguing why something is actually wrong. "But this is objectification, end of story!" If something really is, sure, but you might as well point out the exact features that make something "objectifying" and hence wrong. I prefer we stick to common-sense terms and make our arguments plain.

This is probably the primary problem, I don't think authors necessarily agree on a single definition making it very difficult to actually know what people are actually saying. The definition I had was based on a more broad definition of object than is typically used by feminists. The definition of object as something which is observed is not incorrect, but the term is often used to contrast subject and in that case would also require that the object not have a unique consciousness. The definition I gave was incorrect because it used the more broad definition of object rather than the more narrow definition which contrasts from subject. I would correct my earlier definition by adding that the objectifying behavior doesn't recognize a unique consciousness. That said the behavior you describe is objectification under the more full definition as well as it doesn't explicitly recognize the unique consciousness of the women he is viewing.

In the article you linked it says that "Kant is worried that when people exercise their sexuality outside the context of monogamous marriage, they treat humanity merely as a means for their sexual purposes.". The behavior you describe is the exercise of sexuality, and is clearly not a part of monogamous marriage, so Kant would likely consider it objectifying behavior.