Men are the new "women"

Post Reply New Topic

My problem is mainly a lot of feminists let radicals represent them like Anita Sarkessan (butchered her name). I also have a problem with gender neutral problem becoming women's problems.

"While the defining characteristics of femininity are not universally identical, some patterns exist: gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femininity

I guess that's a cultural thing. I've met both men and women who were incapable of empathy. In both cases they were not aware that they were incapable of empathy.

I don't recall a "gender war", though I rarely stray beyond the confines of PPR when I visit WP and therefore readily accept the possibility of such an event elsewhere on these boards. Debates are almost always ideological here, with a minority of input coming from the occasional rogue elements (who tend to have a low survival rate).



If anyone's casting men of straw here, it's you.

Feminism is an ideology, not a sex. Feminism has almost as many variants as it has practitioners. If your response to those who object to such practitioners whose particular brand of feminism is appalling and harmful is to label them 'whining misogynists', you're granting your tacit support to said harmful feminists.

Rabid ideologues constitute a significant percentage of "third wave" feminists and make full use of the protection offered to them by the entire collective in precisely this manner.



Indeed there are, and they seem to be getting more effective at finding their voices (or perhaps some of the more excessive ones are reforming), though I doubt it's sufficient to stop the rot. The overarching SJW ideology that's infested feminism has preyed on the vulnerabilities inherent to such a large-scale, amorphous movement like a parasite, as is its wont.

What I find stunning is how blind so many seemingly well-intentioned people have been to the ham-fisted social engineering that's backfiring so spectacularly across the West. So much so that they're incapable of discerning the causes of the rise of anti-Progressive, anti-establishment sentiment that's putting the likes of Trump in office.

Le Pen will likely be the cause of the next mass triggering. I suggest everyone stocks up on the popcorn.

It's more of a comedy theory thing. Patton Oswalt wrote a great piece about his evolving theory of comedy, here. It convinced me that there are indeed different kinds of jokes. People have justification for responding differently to different 'sex jokes.'
http://www.pattonoswalt.com/index.cfm?id=167&page=spew

It surprised me that when Trump won, some of the anti-SJWs thought they had won. They thought Trump's victory would be the end of SJW. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When Trump won I was filled with dread not because I feared Trump himself but because I knew Trump's victory would make the SJWs ten times as strong.

What better way to make the common folk agree with SJWs then by making the SJWs enemy a guy that half of the common folk hate.

Trump will probably screw up and when he does it will hurt conservatism as a whole. If Hillary had won then Hillary would probably screw something up and when she did it would have hurt liberalism as a whole.

A president has a much higher chance of discrediting their own party then someone who lost the election.

The SJWs will oppose Trump for as long as he serves but if Trump is shot it will be a disaster for the SJWs since Trump would have a higher approval rating while dead then he could while alive. Trump would make an effective martyr. It's very difficult to fight a good martyr.

Dox actually has friends who lecture him about this stuff, but how about the rest of you? Do you encounter them without seeking them out specifically? I may have a chance to go looking in a target rich environment quite soon, and I'll report back with what I find.

Jacoby, fascists do teach your children. You have had teachers, right?

The rest reads like a string of buzzwords, so that you don't get the idea that anything happened, other than there being no intelligent reply to whatever extreme to which you would actually, regrettably go.

I'll go ahead and reiterate my assertion that gender is a multi-dimensional, continuous phenomenon. People can make it discrete however they find convenient. Even if they only find it a convenient stick.

That actually sounds like the best argument for having thirty-eleven hundred genders. How many sexes? Is it the same number as genders, or different?

That is pretty sexist stuff that you said. Also, a bit weird in the context of an autism forum.

From the beginning of the same wiki:
Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.[1][2][3] This makes it distinct from the definition of the biological female sex,[4][5] as both males and females can exhibit feminine traits.

In the real world, men exhibit masculine behavior.

That's why feminism movements exist.

It's these behaviors that feminists seek to "correct".

They seek to change the male, so he doesn't exhibit those behaviors anymore.

In a world of pure imagination.

In New York, they put this pleading on the subway ...



https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/nyre ... .html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manspreading

While I'll agree that men are being silenced there is a danger that if men talk to much of their victimhood they'll become indistinguishable from the feminists.

Take for example MGTOW. It's basically a gender reversed version of SJW-feminism. Both SJW-feminists and MGTOWs are terrified of the opposite gender.

You don't win a battle of cultures by turning into the exact same culture.

Being asked to stop shouting equals being silenced?

IT'S A CROWDED SUBWAY, and let's not mince words about the territorial signals sent by any mammal who takes up as much space as possible.

No one is shouting.

I agree that manspreading is rude and it should be taboo. Is there also a sign saying that women giving a seat to their bags is rude and taboo?



Perhaps she could put her bags under her seat.

I've heard men make the argument that they have to spread their legs so their balls don't get crushed. This is BS. I possess a pair of balls and yet when I sit with my legs straight they don't get crushed.

I've heard women say they sit cross-legged to take up less space and that men should do the same. That won't work for men because when men sit cross legged it causes them to take up more space, not less.

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 12 Mar 2017, 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.