Outspoken male "feminists" are hypocrites

ligerdub

Samaris wrote: »

As usual, "feminism" is being reinterpreted as being man-hating.

I quite see how this is extremely upsetting to men seeing other men describing themselves as feminists.

Look, any movement has its wingnuts. ANY movement. On the internet, you will mostly see said wingnuts, because they're loudest. Many, probably even most, proponants of feminism (and I'm ignoring all this first wave, second wave, third wave Millennial crap, because it seems like a very handy way to say "well, it was useful in the PAST, but now they're just being greedy") believe just that gender should not be a category to subordinate a person.

So, yes, equality. Now, unsurprisingly, most feminists are women, because people tend to fight most for what affects them directly. Many men are also feminists, i.e. believe in equal rights for women. There are a few places where it all gets hairy based on physical strength - the army is still one that gets hotly argued. Many women, including the dread feminists, will also argue for mens' rights where men have more difficulty. Many men will do so too.

Idiots, however, will point to a civil rights movement, whine that they have problems too and demand that said civil rights movement do all the hard work for them as well, while bitching that they're mean to them AND DOING NOTHING THEMSELVES (bar bitch). These people are fools. I have no patience for them.

There is no point taking one label, cherry-picking the odd lunatic and dismissing anyone that falls under that label as anything based on your pet wingnut. That is short-sighted, unscientific and frankly, dishonest. So I have no time for those people either.

Btw, most men I know would either a) say yeah, they are feminists and/or b) say that they believe in equal rights for men and women, but avoid the term "feminism" because it sounds biased. I'm grand with either of those, tbh. No point in labelling someone against their will! None of them appear to be particularly pussywhipped, gay*, controlled, or trying to get into my pants based on it. Bar my partner, but he has other ways to do that rather than pandering :P

TL:DR: Don't label everyone based on the few idiots you know. I raise your anecdotal evidence that your feminist friends and acquaintances are pussy-whipped morons with my own that none of the ones I know are.

*I take that back, a few of them are, but I don't think that they are gay BECAUSE they are feminists/equalitarian/whatever. I suspect that...could it be? Because they are gay.

You're much too reasonable & dignified for this debate

Widdershins

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's not surprising, considering how you feel about feminism.

I mentioned that I'm make and feminist on a thread before. You made some pretty wide reaching decisions about me based on that information alone.

One poster told me I'm only doing it (treating people fairly) in a pathetic attempt to get women to have sex with me. I mentioned that I'm in a relationship so they said I must be with a dominant woman and I'm puzzywhipped. Then someone asked if I'm gay.

So if you're using me as one of the male feminists whose only a feminist so I can sleep with women, while in a relationship with a dominsnt abusive bint, and gay. I must be a strange character. None of it's true of course, but that hardly matters

You are confusing me with someone else. Please go back and check this.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Language is full of meaning.

Same old stuff. That's not even an argument.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

2 there's a great chance you would read links if I were to post them.

Cop out. No source.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Google her appointment and filter google for around mid 2009. Do your own homework. Or remain ignorant on the topic. Completely up to you.

Same thing rephrased. No source.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes it was a straw man when I asked you AND when anyone asked her. Glad you got there in the end.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She's is repeatedly asked this question which implies there is an appropriate number of women to have on the court. As you pointed out, it's a straw man. Rather than try to answer the straw man question, she flips the question. Really common stuff.

She was the one who mentioned this question. She was at a bar conference but nobody there asked that question. She mentioned the question and she answered it herself.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Words do have meaning though. Often more than one meaning. Her answer is an example of that.

Associating special meaning with what she said. Same old thing.

ligerdub

An unspoken issue here is the lefty stance inherent in all this.

Quotas/regulations/government intervention is as much of a bug bear as who it represents. It stifles competition. Competition is something which men are inherently more attracted to, possibly due to a higher testosterone count. Anything which discourages competition is bad for society in my opinion. People become disenfranchised, disengaged, and lack purpose to a larger degree than before, particularly men in this case. I'm sure that some women will think "what's the point of me even going for this job, it's all men, they'll never pick me", but from a male perspective if he heard that he'd probably think "there's pressure on companies to balance out the genders, she's practically a shoo-in if she does any way well". If there's no imbalance or if there's more women then men then it makes no odds. I guess a lot depends on perspective and framing here. As somebody who just doesn't believe there is any obstacle for women to progress in life and take whatever path they want I find this level of victim-hood to be totally unreasonable. I don't feel men should be faced with collective responsibility for problems that aren't even there, or for individual cases where something obviously wrong has occurred. I don't understand why people who aren't even the alleged victims align themselves to this movement either. The feminist movement is all about seeking to get other people to put rules in place to help them out, rather than acting as positive role models for what women can do. To me, people like Marissa Meyer, Ronda Rousey should be feminist heroes, and not just mainstream people, women who are pillars of their community and the glue that keeps families together, why not celebrate that? People who didn't ask for some government leg-up scheme to push somebody along. Let them do what they want, not what the likes of Kate Smurthwaite and Germaine Greer want women to be.

Some of the policies preferred by feminists should be considered so bizarre that they should sit out with extreme groups rather than in the mainstream. But that's simply not the case. You have an example today where a British MP, Jess Phillips (a real piece of work) has called for men to be removed from ballot papers until there is an equal share, not a fair share, an equal share of Labour seats between men and women. I mean that's just disgusting! Will she call for the same if women suddenly go to 60% of Labour seat holders? Will she f**k! It's these type of idiots who should be called out for what they are, yet the silence is deafening.

I'm sure most people could support the movement more if it weren't for the fact that they are looking for at least a 50:50 split in areas typically not followed by women by choice, and an end to a deeply discredited theory about pay differentials between genders. If this is a vision of the future then men just shouldn't bother their arse trying to get ahead, and we are seeing signs of that happening already.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-ban-all-men-from-standing-in-byelections-mp-jess-phillips-says-a3367131.html

It won't be long until this sort of stuff transfers to Ireland either.

What exactly are the feminist movement striving for these days anyway?

In November we will see the heads of state in the United States, two of the biggest economies in Europe, the biggest economy in South America, and the head of the IMF all being women, and one of them hasn't even committed any crimes. :-)

El_Duderino 09

I went to respond to your last post and when I quoted each piece it was just a load of garbage. So I'll start again.

The woman said she is repeatedly asked a question and then she answered it. Simple enough.

Inherent in the question is the idea that there is an appropriate number of women on the supreme court. As you pointed out, that's not a sensible question. Her answer took the bias and turned it around. If you hear the answer that the supreme court should be all women and see that as wrong, then you should easily see that a supreme court of all men is also not good. The supreme court gas almost always been all men... So...

Tell me the point where you lose track. I'll explain it to you.

Feel free to remain ignorant on the Sonia Sotomayor point. It's completely your prerogative. I didn't claim to provide a source you can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Pat Mustard

I think that we've discussed pretty much everything at this stage.

Maybe we should leave it at that.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I do t go out if my way to read feminists literature. It looks like you read a fair bit so I defer to you on that point.

Right. So you don't read the creed and yet still self identify as a feminist? That's akin to self identifying as a christian and being unaware of the last supper. It's either a) and easy way out when debate gets too difficult, b) daftly naive or c) you're a la carte about your feminist faith. Unless you've been residing in the basement flat of a Rock you most certainly have heard of rape culture, 1 in 4, pay gap etc and how these notions are regularly rolled out in mainstream feminism with it. To deny that would be telling.

Wibbs

Samaris wrote: »

As usual, "feminism" is being reinterpreted as being man-hating.

I quite see how this is extremely upsetting to men seeing other men describing themselves as feminists.

Look, any movement has its wingnuts. ANY movement. On the internet, you will mostly see said wingnuts, because they're loudest.

Sure S and I agree, but when the wingnuts are sneaking concepts like rape culture and the like into everyday discourse and policy decisions, that's the point where I think get off the stage luv. Thank christ we don't have it so bad in Ireland and hopefully it won't get to US college and beyond levels, where even prez Obama regurgitates the nonsense 1 in 4 mantra, or Hillary Clinton saying with a straight face that the primary victims of war are women. We do have posters telling men they're somehow responsible for rape by the default of not somehow preventing it in others. We do have a growing gender education gap which if the genders were reversed would have think tanks and quangos kicking off. Ditto for the vastly skewed suicide stats. We do have the myriad issues surrounding father's rights. We do have a support system for abused women, but almost nothing for men. No doubt that's all the patriarchy's fault mind you.

Letree

Most men i know wouldn't consider themselves a feminist. They realise we have equality now. To call yourself a feminist in this day and age means you are favoring women's interests over real equality issues. Feminists are not interested in issues of inequality affecting men. Why would any man buy into that. We need an egalitarian movement that can identify when something adversely affects men or woman. It can't be done under the feminist banner.

kunst nugget

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I think that we've discussed pretty much everything at this stage.

Maybe we should leave it at that.

We haven't had enough post-feminist Predator quotes yet…

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

I think that we've discussed pretty much everything at this stage.

Great. Glad to help

Wibbs wrote:

Right. So you don't read the creed and yet still self identify as a feminist? That's akin to self identifying as a christian and being unaware of the last supper. It's either a) and easy way out when debate gets too difficult, b) daftly naive or c) you're a la carte about your feminist faith.

Creed, faith. Wah?

I'm on about treating people fairly. I have almost no idea what you're on about.

Wibbs wrote:

Unless you've been residing in the basement flat of a Rock you most certainly have heard of rape culture, 1 in 4, pay gap etc and how these notions are regularly rolled out in mainstream feminism with it. To deny that would be telling.

No idea what 1in4 is. What is it?

I've heard of rape culture though I don't seem to spend as much time reading about these things as you seem to. There's a great chance were referring to different things.

I was recently a mature student and I've been around when the lads were on the pull. The craic was 90 and everything was banter. They would get a woman home and if she sobered up and decided she didn't want to have sex they would have no trouble putting pressure on her to do it. They would have sex with women who were almost passed out, tag each other in to take over having sex with the women. I don't know if that's rape or not but there definitely wasn't much consent involved. How could there be when everyone was do drunk?

There was one fella who used to get blind drunk and ended up having sex with almost all the single women in his class. He used to wake up on couches with no idea who he slept with. He got flashbacks to banging women in alleyways and the like. He was an exceptionally handsome fella and it was always taken as banter but he never really found it funny - until the next night out and he was getting hammered again. He couldn't have consented to anything with the state he was in.

I have an aunt in her 50s who told me about when she was a 17yead old student. In Dublin, up from the country. Long story short she was pressured into having sex with a guy at a party. She didn't know about basic things like consent because those things weren't talked about.

I don't know what you mean by rape culture but my experience was eye opening. It's. I see the issue of rape as important. I hope we share that view.

Discussion of these topics is important. You mentioned that feminism has come up in conversation a few times in your life. Wow that sounds really inconvenient for you. I hope you will soldier on knowing that it's part if a pretty important discussion.

You don't have to read the eejits, and if you do read them you can dismiss them. That's what I do when I hear eejits who take these things too far. There is no creed, there is no faith. I dismissed those comments from you when you made them because they're really silly things to say. I'm sure you know that.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure S and I agree, but when the wingnuts are sneaking concepts like rape culture and the like into everyday discourse and policy decisions, that's the point where I think get off the stage luv. Thank christ we don't have it so bad in Ireland and hopefully it won't get to US college and beyond levels, where even prez Obama regurgitates the nonsense 1 in 4 mantra, or Hillary Clinton saying with a straight face that the primary victims of war are women. We do have posters telling men they're somehow responsible for rape by the default of not somehow preventing it in others. We do have a growing gender education gap which if the genders were reversed would have think tanks and quangos kicking off. Ditto for the vastly skewed suicide stats. We do have the myriad issues surrounding father's rights. We do have a support system for abused women, but almost nothing for men. No doubt that's all the patriarchy's fault mind you.

Not to mention the fact that two great scientists, Tim Hunt, who discovered how the cell divides and Matt Taylor, A Rosetta scientist who landed a rocket on a comet were harassed by feminist groups because of perceived wrongs. Tim's mistake was being taken out of context and having his speech edited and Matt's was wearing a shirt his female friend made for him. Tim lost his job and Matt had to make a teary apology on TV. So no I don't like to be part of the group that happily called themselves feminists on that day.

The latter incident involved a group of feminists criticising a scientist's atire while ignoring his work. An activity feminists have criticised the media for countless times.

Now I know people will say that they don't represent all feminists. Well if that's the case who does? Some people are fast to exclude people they consider embarrassing for feminism without going into much detail on what is feminism.

Widdershins

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Great. Glad to help



Creed, faith. Wah?

I'm on about treating people fairly. I have almost no idea what you're on about.



No idea what 1in4 is. What is it?

I've heard of rape culture though I don't seem to spend as much time reading about these things as you seem to. There's a great chance were referring to different things.

I was recently a mature student and I've been around when the lads were on the pull. The craic was 90 and everything was banter. They would get a woman home and if she sobered up and decided she didn't want to have sex they would have no trouble putting pressure on her to do it. They would have sex with women who were almost passed out, tag each other in to take over having sex with the women. I don't know if that's rape or not but there definitely wasn't much consent involved. How could there be when everyone was do drunk?

There was one fella who used to get blind drunk and ended up having sex with almost all the single women in his class. He used to wake up on couches with no idea who he slept with. He got flashbacks to banging women in alleyways and the like. He was an exceptionally handsome fella and it was always taken as banter but he never really found it funny - until the next night out and he was getting hammered again. He couldn't have consented to anything with the state he was in.

I have an aunt in her 50s who told me about when she was a 17yead old student. In Dublin, up from the country. Long story short she was pressured into having sex with a guy at a party. She didn't know about basic things like consent because those things weren't talked about.

I don't know what you mean by rape culture but my experience was eye opening. It's. I see the issue of rape as important. I hope we share that view.

Discussion of these topics is important. You mentioned that feminism has come up in conversation a few times in your life. Wow that sounds really inconvenient for you. I hope you will soldier on knowing that it's part if a pretty important discussion.

You don't have to read the eejits, and if you do read them you can dismiss them. That's what I do when I hear eejits who take these things too far. There is no creed, there is no faith. I dismissed those comments from you when you made them because they're really silly things to say. I'm sure you know that.

Sorry to interrupt but could you clarify what you were talking about in your earlier comment to me, which I recently quoted? If not I'll just assume it was a misunderstanding

El_Duderino 09

Widdershins wrote:

Sorry to interrupt but could you clarify what you were talking about in your earlier comment to me, which I recently quoted? If not I'll just assume it was a misunderstanding

It was a discussion where I mentioned male feminist and a got a load of responses with fairly far out assumptions about me based on that one piece of info.

I'm on the phone so I can't look back now. I'll have a look later.

If I have the wrong poster then I apologise.

Widdershins

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was a discussion where I mentioned male feminist and a got a load of responses with fairly far out assumptions about me based on that one piece of info.

I'm on the phone so I can't look back now. I'll have a look later.

If I have the wrong poster then I apologise.

If you have the right poster then I apologise.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Zillah wrote: »

I'm a feminist from the 1970's. That's what I mean when I say I'm a feminist. The current batch of hyper-strident, tumblrite, professional victims do themselves and the movement more harm than good. They've ruined the term entirely, giving chauvinistic goblins ample ammunition for demonising all kinds of feminists, just like we've seen in this thread.

People are referring to the modern day feminism of the regressive left not the second wave movement that you were a part of.

Listen to prominent feminists of your generation such as Christina Hoff Sommers speak about third wave feminism. She is appalled by it.

kunst nugget

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

People are referring to the modern day feminism of the regressive left not the second wave movement that you were a part of.

Listen to prominent feminists of your generation such as Christina Hoff Sommers speak about third wave feminism. She is appalled by it.

She was hardly a prominent second wave feminist. But others such as Germaine Greer have argued that third wave feminism has achieved little.

py2006

The King of Moo wrote: »

It just seems reasonable for most normal people to be feminists.

Oh the irony!

El_Duderino 09

kunst nugget wrote:

She was hardly a prominent second wave feminist. But others such as Germaine Greer have argued that third wave feminism has achieved little.

The feminist mad yolks on the internet don't bother me a bit. Neither do the male mad yolks on the internet bother me.

We dismiss the mad yolks when we talk about most other groups. For some reason the lads here set to think the only feminists are the most radical ones.

When asked if they actually have to interact with these dreadful extremist feminists, they site a few conversations where feminism arose, or a male boss who views men as a threat...

It's not exactly the plague they make it out to be.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The feminist mad yolks on the internet don't bother me a bit. Neither do the male mad yolks on the internet bother me.

We dismiss the mad yolks when we talk about most other groups. For some reason the lads here set to think the only feminists are the most radical ones.

When asked if they actually have to interact with these dreadful extremist feminists, they site a few conversations where feminism arose, or a male boss who views men as a threat...

It's not exactly the plague they make it out to be.

A Nobel prize winning scientist for forced to quit his job and a scientist who landed a rocket on a commet was forced to make an apology for his fashion sense.

pickarooney

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You might think that feminism does not serve equal rights any more. You are correct. However, if you look at the goals of certain feminists, you will see that they have every intention of carrying on.

Look at this article about US Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg:


She would like to see an all-woman United States Supreme Court.

She says there have been nine men in the US Supreme Court, previously. She is correct about that. However, she not looking for equality now. She is looking for something else.

You could read it this way or as an answer to 'how many women before we say that's enough, no more'

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So many assumptions in that one post. How would you know anything about the quiet people who just get on with the business of treating people fairly?

Well, first of all, as my post stated, I was referring to the male feminists I have either met or read and so I'm not sure how that qualifies as not knowing anything about them. Secondly, you cite "quiet" male feminists and suggest I am biased towards them and shouldn't be. Well, all I can say to that is that I'm sure there are "quiet" Nazis and "quiet" KKK members but does that stop you having a bias against them? Or how about the "quiet" ones who still believe in a flat Earth? Is it wrong to not think of them as idiots just because they are not as vocal about as some others are? Course not.

Male feminists are just black belts in virtue signalling. They are only interested in the societal pay off of identifying as such. We live in a western culture now that sees white men as the enemy and as a means of getting female attention these men disassociate themselves from those 'oppressive patriarchal' types by aligning themselves with all the nonsense third wave feminism espouses... and what's more, feminists know it too.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/19/why-i-wont-date-another-male-feminist

tommyboy2222

kunst nugget wrote: »

We haven't had enough post-feminist Predator quotes yet…

"Whats the matter Dylan ? CIA got you pushing too many pencils ?"

"Of course it's perfectly fine for men to work as secretaries in todays modern workplce"

Sad Professor

I remember Faraci from his CHUD days and have always found his trolling of certain online groups great to watch simply because of how good at it he was. Most of the people attacking him now have an axe to grind over something or other. Undoubtedly he brought a lot of this on himself, but I really dislike the online witch hunt that he's being subjected to over an incident that happened a decade ago and which he apparently doesn't remember – probably because he was drunk at the time.

Dr Jakub

Please stop with the references to that appallingly sexist, white supremacist and imperialistic movie.

I am dangerously close to being triggered!

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Creed, faith. Wah?

I'm on about treating people fairly. I have almost no idea what you're on about.

Oh I suspect you know exactly what I"m talking about. Your responses prove it for me.

No idea what 1in4 is. What is it?

I've heard of rape culture though I don't seem to spend as much time reading about these things as you seem to. There's a great chance were referring to different things.

OK

I was recently a mature student

You don't saaaay?

and I've been around when the lads were on the pull. The craic was 90 and everything was banter. They would get a woman home and if she sobered up and decided she didn't want to have sex they would have no trouble putting pressure on her to do it. They would have sex with women who were almost passed out, tag each other in to take over having sex with the women. I don't know if that's rape or not but there definitely wasn't much consent involved. How could there be when everyone was do drunk?

There was one fella who used to get blind drunk and ended up having sex with almost all the single women in his class. He used to wake up on couches with no idea who he slept with. He got flashbacks to banging women in alleyways and the like. He was an exceptionally handsome fella and it was always taken as banter but he never really found it funny - until the next night out and he was getting hammered again. He couldn't have consented to anything with the state he was in.

I have an aunt in her 50s who told me about when she was a 17yead old student. In Dublin, up from the country. Long story short she was pressured into having sex with a guy at a party. She didn't know about basic things like consent because those things weren't talked about.

I don't know what you mean by rape culture but my experience was eye opening.Rape Culture!! *panic. wave arms in the air*

FYP

I did like the good looking lad who may or may not have given this consent you speak of. Nice touch. Pardon me if I don't believe it. If true, then I would say he carries a load of responsibility. Now there's a triggering word indeed these days. If you repeat a pattern, there may be other perps involved but the one constant may be one's stupidity in the mix ted, or teddess for that matter. I have often found it interesting that in the case of sexual consent, the man(and it's almost always the man) who may be at the same level of drunkenness or more than the woman involved has to take responsibility for his own actions and responsibility for hers.

It's. I see the issue of rape as important. I hope we share that view.

:pac::pac: Man, for someone who claims not to be cognisant of current feminism and it's tenets, you seem remarkably well attuned to their arguments and debate tactics. This a classic of the genre. The transparent "oh so do you not see rape!!(should be in loud letters) as important?". This neatly tends to lead into the "you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" logic. I use the term loosely. Or as a generic use scary word to shut down debate.

Discussion of these topics is important. You mentioned that feminism has come up in conversation a few times in your life. Wow that sounds really inconvenient for you. I hope you will soldier on knowing that it's part if a pretty important discussion.

More passive aggressive "debate" tactics from the handbook. I do love how discussion for you is being agreed with. What I have found increasingly true is both the "right" and "left" are increasingly looking for, nay dependent on echo chambers. I suspect it's why forums(in the wider sense) like Boards are less popular. Too many dissenting voices to whatever catechism you're having yourself. I reckon it's why reddit, arsebook groups and the like are more popular. The environment almost guarantees general compliance to whatever is the cause in play. Seriously. You see it whether the topic is go girl tumblr feminism or go Trump subs/groups. Debate increasingly becomes Let's all agree, Yay!

You don't have to read the eejits, and if you do read them you can dismiss them. That's what I do when I hear eejits who take these things too far. There is no creed, there is no faith. I dismissed those comments from you when you made them because they're really silly things to say. I'm sure you know that.

And again. Woohoo for the twofer. For extra effect add in this guy ->







*and for a change in the polarity games where both usually use the same tactics, this is far more seen in the "left/liberal/feminists" types. They seem to have mined the vein of smug self satisfaction at the correctness of their position right down to the bedrock.

Grayson

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You might think that feminism does not serve equal rights any more. You are correct. However, if you look at the goals of certain feminists, you will see that they have every intention of carrying on.

Look at this article about US Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg:


She would like to see an all-woman United States Supreme Court.

She says there have been nine men in the US Supreme Court, previously. She is correct about that. However, she not looking for equality now. She is looking for something else.

She's asking for more when she wants there to be 9 on the supreme court?

Firstly, she's right. There have been 9 men for most of it's history.

Secondly, does it matter what gender they are if they're the best for the job?

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

A Nobel prize winning scientist for forced to quit his job and a scientist who landed a rocket on a commet was forced to make an apology for his fashion sense.

I've no time for that. You don't have to be an uber macho clown to know that was a load of nonsense.

It happened to one scientist, you're one scientist so it basically happened to you, right? That was a very strange case where the internet spilled over into real life. Bad business and you wouldn't find me supporting it.

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Well, first of all, as my post stated, I was referring to the male feminists I have either met or read and so I'm not sure how that qualifies as not knowing anything about them.

The lads you've met or read about who treat men and women fairly are all weirdos? Or lads who go around banding on about this stuff in real life are weirdos? they're not the same people.

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Secondly, you cite "quiet" male feminists and suggest I am biased towards them and shouldn't be.

No you misunderstand. You're biased towards the lads who go around talking about this stuff, not the lads who say nothing and treat people fairly. I bet you don't even notice their feminism. Why would you?

The paragraph below which goes on about the KKK and Nazis in super interesting, I'm quite sure, but it's based in the misunderstanding i mention above. So... No need to go down Godwin's rabbit hole

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Well, all I can say to that is that I'm sure there are "quiet" Nazis and "quiet" KKK members but does that stop you having a bias against them? Or how about the "quiet" ones who still believe in a flat Earth? Is it wrong to not think of them as idiots just because they are not as vocal about as some others are? Course not.

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When asked if they actually have to interact with these dreadful extremist feminists, they site a few conversations where feminism arose, or a male boss who views men as a threat...

It's not exactly the plague they make it out to be.

Yeah, you're absolutely right, the question is asked all the time, but the answers are more often than not.. ignored. Third wave feminists have had (and are having) very real negative effects on society. If they weren't, then nobody would care what the hell they said.

Feminists of old have commented on how children are even being effected by the feminisation of our education system. Look at our Romero and Juliet laws we sees our society seemingly happy to have legislation which makes a criminal of a young male for the same act which a young female can commit with impunity. In fact the list is endless for examples of third wave feminists either drafting sexist legislation, or attempting to do so. When Harriet Harman was the Minister for Equality in the UK she tried to push through a bill that would make it legal to discriminate against men. But yet we're told to pipe down that women only want equality. Yeah bloody right.

Louise O'Neill is shining example of how feminists today can even make a career out of playing the victim and manipulating other young women to see themselves as such. Whinges about the objectification of women out of one side of her mouth but yet then happily objectifies men out of the other. In fact I would say if anything was the hallmark of third wave feminism, then it's their searing hypocrisy. Of which they mostly seem to be oblivious to. Amy Schumer another of these modern day feminists who seem determined to portray young women as perpetual victims and white men their perpetual victimizers. Not a week goes past that she is not pointing out society is unfairly fat shaming women, but yet what does she do when some spoon heckles her... she calls him a "fat piece of shit".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_JgmrOcDUY

Same with Meryl Streep, she whines about men not taking women seriously but yet goes to an feminist awards show and quotes Thatcher saying "If you want something talked about ask a man, if you want something done ask a woman" and of course gets an ovation. You wouldn't mind if these women walked their walk but they rarely do. How many times have we heard feminists complain about how successful women are not being taken seriously for their accomplishments and how their looks will still be seen as ultimately what's important. Well, with that in mind take a look at this tweet from Cosmopolitan during the Olympics:

https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/761762687940370432

Personally I couldn't care less about them writing such articles, but feminists need to admit that we all objectify each other and let us have it. Stop shaming men by labeling their behavior as sexist and / or creepy but yet have no issue when the very same God damn thing is done and said about men by women. It's complete hypocrisy. It's almost as if women today (and their cheerleaders) are compelled to paint themselves as victims and if it can be done by framing that victimization as being an example of patriarchal oppression, all the better. Even the recent Cavan murders were unbelievably used to that extent. Insanity and I suspect most feminists of days long since past would see it as such too.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

Oh I suspect you know exactly what I"m talking about. Your responses prove it for me.

I genuinely don't know whether feminist creed or faith tpyoure talking about.

Wibbs wrote:

You don't saaaay?

Strange response. Yes I do say.

Wibbs wrote:

FYP

I old you the events as I experienced them and you imagined someone waiving their arms in the air panicking? Very childish behaviour. I see rape as a serious topic. I thought we would agree on that.

Wibbs wrote:

I did like the good looking lad who may or may not have given this consent you speak of. Nice touch. Pardon me if I don't believe it. If true, then I would say he carries a load of responsibility. Now there's a triggering word indeed these days. If you repeat a pattern, there may be other perps involved but the one constant may be one's stupidity in the mix ted, or teddess for that matter. I have often found it interesting that in the case of sexual consent, the man(and it's almost always the man) who may be at the same level of drunkenness or more than the woman involved has to take responsibility for his own actions and responsibility for hers.

Believe what you like. It's an unusual situation bit that's how it happened. He pulled plenty women when he wasn't hammered so it didn't draw any more attention than normal when he 'pulled' when he was that hammered. the girls in his class had a name for him. Last orders or last stop, something like that. It was all great banter but was there consent involved? Not even possible.

Is responsibility the triggering word? What do you mean? You're talking around what you mean a lot. Makes it difficult to know when you're being funny on purpose and when you're not.

You'll notice I didn't try to put responsibility on the lads or the women. I told you what I experienced. You imagined flailing inflatable tube men.

Wibbs wrote:

Man, for someone who claims not to be cognisant of current feminism and it's tenets, you seem remarkably well attuned to their arguments and debate tactics. This a classic of the genre. The transparent "oh so do you not see rape!!(should be in loud letters) as important?". This neatly tends to lead into the "you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" logic. I use the term loosely. Or as a generic use scary word to shut down debate.

I only saw it because I was a bit older than the rest of them. When I was an undergrad I didn't notice any of that stuff. I took part in some of it and didn't see anything wrong with it at the time.
I do see rape as a serious issue. Consent isn't black and white. It's actually a fairly important issue and it's very hazy when people are that drunk.

Wibbs wrote:

More passive aggressive "debate" tactics from the handbook. I do love how discussion for you is being agreed with. What I have found increasingly true is both the "right" and "left" are increasingly looking for, nay dependent on echo chambers. I suspect it's why forums(in the wider sense) like Boards are less popular. Too many dissenting voices to whatever catechism you're having yourself. I reckon it's why reddit, arsebook groups and the like are more popular. The environment almost guarantees general compliance to whatever is the cause in play. Seriously. You see it whether the topic is go girl tumblr feminism or go Trump subs/groups. Debate increasingly becomes Let's all agree, Yay!

The quote above is almost entirely gibberish. I don't even see this feminism stuff outside of boards. You seem to see it everywhere. It even entered a few conversations you had. The horror!

Wibbs wrote:

And again. Woohoo for the twofer. For extra effect add in this guy ->

No idea what you're on about. Twofer?

Wibbs wrote:

*and for a change in the polarity games where both usually use the same tactics, this is far more seen in the "left/liberal/feminists" types. They seem to have mined the vein of smug self satisfaction at the correctness of their position right down to the bedrock.

If you say so. You seem to spend a lot of time reading about these things. Feminist Handbooks, debate tactics, creeds, faiths, tenets. You seem to know everything and understand little