Feminism and why it's bad.

I think the question here is: How in hell this turned into a serious debate? It was a joke, guys, remember?
 
At least we got Sander to reappear, at the cost of turning this into an actual "debate".
 
I think the question here is: How in hell this turned into a serious debate? It was a joke, guys, remember?

There are no jokes in feminism. It's the most humourless crowd, period.




Over the years I have had many discussions with a number of people who labeled themselves feminists, or at least veered in that ideological direction, and not a single one of those people knew how to take the joke properly. However, I wouldn't know for certain since there is apparently a chronic lack of valuable statistics and other absolutely necessary data on the subject to confirm what we are saying.
 
Although, sometimes they do have some humour:
8b0393533de834bdb4c4b54fc5c81b26.jpg

Wikipedia on Daleks:
Daleks have little, if any, individual personality,[11] ostensibly no emotions other than hatred and anger,[9] and a strict command structure in which they are conditioned to obey superiors' orders without question.[91] Dalek speech is characterised by repeated phrases, and by orders given to themselves and to others.[92] Unlike the stereotypical emotionless robots often found in science fiction, Daleks are often angry; author Kim Newman has described the Daleks as behaving "like toddlers in perpetual hissy fits", gloating when in power and flying into rage when thwarted.[93] They tend to be excitable and will repeat the same word or phrase over and over again in heightened emotional states, most famously "Exterminate! Exterminate!"
Self-deprecating humour at its finest.
 
Ignorance is never good, which is why I don't believe that closing your eyes to innate differences between the sexes, and how they interact with one another, is a good course of action. Trying to fit individuals into the mold of equality when they are not equal only creates problems, namely denial of reality and creation of hostility and conflict.

Oh, so you're a biotruther. How quaint. Sander already deconstructed your claims extensively.

That's what I think is wrong with feminism - like Marxism, it portrays an "oppression" that doesn't actually exist for the reasons that are posited, and advocates destruction of the traditional, time-tested way of doing things for the sake of the vague ideal of equality, often causing more damage than could be foreseen. In fact, some circles think that feminism was a tool by Communist subverters to undermine the Western family unit and thereby undercut social health, making a weaker target. It's an interesting notion to consider.

"Traditional, time-tested way of doing things" like shoving women in the kitchen, denying them basic political rights, beating children? Or are you referring to time-tested way of doing things from the Bible, including selling your daughters into slavery, forcing women to marry rapists, the whole nine yards?
 
Ignorance is never good, which is why I don't believe that closing your eyes to innate differences between the sexes, and how they interact with one another, is a good course of action. Trying to fit individuals into the mold of equality when they are not equal only creates problems, namely denial of reality and creation of hostility and conflict.

Oh, so you're a biotruther. How quaint. Sander already deconstructed your claims extensively.

That's what I think is wrong with feminism - like Marxism, it portrays an "oppression" that doesn't actually exist for the reasons that are posited, and advocates destruction of the traditional, time-tested way of doing things for the sake of the vague ideal of equality, often causing more damage than could be foreseen. In fact, some circles think that feminism was a tool by Communist subverters to undermine the Western family unit and thereby undercut social health, making a weaker target. It's an interesting notion to consider.

"Traditional, time-tested way of doing things" like shoving women in the kitchen, denying them basic political rights, beating children? Or are you referring to time-tested way of doing things from the Bible, including selling your daughters into slavery, forcing women to marry rapists, the whole nine yards?

Sander did nothing of the sort and in fact did just as you did - did not even deign to address most of the points I made and dismissed them out of hand. "How quaint". Smugly asserting superiority as self evident doesn't really work to convince anyone your side is correct, except impressionable and emotional teenagers.

Now it's my turn to say your choice of words is telling. "Shoving" them in the kitchen? Are you implying that all women at all periods hated being a housewife, did not want to be there, did not want to do their part in making the home? How do you know there were not women out there who loved it, saw it as their calling and purpose, what they were meant for? This is what I meant by an "oppression that didn't exist" - your side paints it that women were locked into these rules, against their will, everywhere, and only with the advent of Jacobin egalitarianism in the West did they finally snap out of the hypnosis and break their chains. The basic examples I posited were there for a reason, they illustrate common scenarios in which women would rather be a homemaker than working in menial labor, in fact http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Colum...n-Are-Leaving-the-Workforce-in-Record-Numbers current trends point to this as desirable, even for many modern, "liberated" women. As the commie/nazi/whateverthefuck dude in the video I originally posted said, the ultimate result of feminism is to increase the workforce and drive wages down, making it so working poor and middle class families need two incomes instead of one to make it comfortably. Feminism is ultimately a trick to entrap women into entering the workforce, instead of being a homemaker full-time to raise the next generation.

As for denial of political rights, that is always a sketchy subject especially in a society that promotes egalitarian concepts. All I'll say is that women and men approach politics differently, and for different reasons. And I personally don't see a problem with corporal punishment so long as long lasting physical damage does not occur.

Since I am a secular atheist, there is nothing in any holy book that gives me any direction for my worldview, besides the diffusion of the basic morality tales among society. The Torah, which describes the horrible ideas that you mention, was written by a primitive tribe that had a literal god-complex, that hated and feared both sex and women. It is hardly shocking to see such barbarism from people of that region, and less shocking still that their rules regarding sex relations were strict and harsh. I think we are both in agreement that those rules are wrong and should not be an example for anyone in the modern day.

I'd say you and Sander are the ones being short sighted here, as well as feminists in general - you have the preconceived notion that all "traditional sexual relations" are neccesarily slavery and barbarism, and therefore you cannot even conceive that some women might elect and enjoy those traditional systems over what we have today. That's the problem with feminism, it chases strawmen and causes very real damage as a result.
 
Last edited:
Ignorance is never good, which is why I don't believe that closing your eyes to innate differences between the sexes, and how they interact with one another, is a good course of action. Trying to fit individuals into the mold of equality when they are not equal only creates problems, namely denial of reality and creation of hostility and conflict.

Oh, so you're a biotruther. How quaint. Sander already deconstructed your claims extensively.

That's what I think is wrong with feminism - like Marxism, it portrays an "oppression" that doesn't actually exist for the reasons that are posited, and advocates destruction of the traditional, time-tested way of doing things for the sake of the vague ideal of equality, often causing more damage than could be foreseen. In fact, some circles think that feminism was a tool by Communist subverters to undermine the Western family unit and thereby undercut social health, making a weaker target. It's an interesting notion to consider.

"Traditional, time-tested way of doing things" like shoving women in the kitchen, denying them basic political rights, beating children? Or are you referring to time-tested way of doing things from the Bible, including selling your daughters into slavery, forcing women to marry rapists, the whole nine yards?

Really? I didn't see any of that deconstructing. Yeah the bible was pretty sick. But I think we're going back way to far. Feminism began in the 1800 hundreds so start with female conditions there.
 


I think the question here is: How in hell this turned into a serious debate? It was a joke, guys, remember?

There are no jokes in feminism. It's the most humourless crowd, period.

There's plenty of feminists with a (relatively) good sense of humour, what you're talking about is SJW's.

Feminism is good. Feminism is not a problem. Extremists, feminist politics and SJW's are the problem.

I like how Tagz skips over all the posts and quotes Vault17 instead because of course his unconscious is like: "I can beat him and look rightious while doing it!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since I am a secular atheist, there is nothing in any holy book that gives me any direction for my worldview, besides the diffusion of the basic morality tales among society. The Torah, which describes the horrible ideas that you mention, was written by a primitive tribe that had a literal god-complex, that hated and feared both sex and women. It is hardly shocking to see such barbarism from people of that region, and less shocking still that their rules regarding sex relations were strict and harsh. I think we are both in agreement that those rules are wrong and should not be an example for anyone in the modern day.

Is that thinly-veiled antisemitism I smell? Not that I'm surprised after the Alain Soral crap. It's a miracle he doesn't blame the Jews for feminism.
 
I don't understand Christianity. The Bible says that women are evil and are mostly sinners yet I know some EXTREMELY devout women and most Christians don't care.
 
Is that thinly-veiled antisemitism I smell? Not that I'm surprised after the Alain Soral crap. It's a miracle he doesn't blame the Jews for feminism.

Everything is thinly-veiled antisemitism. There are no exceptions. Except of course the cold hard fact that they are God's chosen people. It's impossible to even fathom that Jews were ever primitive. It's a lie. And it's holocaust denial.
 
Last edited:
I'd say you and Sander are the ones being short sighted here, as well as feminists in general - you have the preconceived notion that all "traditional sexual relations" are neccesarily slavery and barbarism, and therefore you cannot even conceive that some women might elect and enjoy those traditional systems over what we have today. That's the problem with feminism, it chases strawmen and causes very real damage as a result.

Most of your post is not even wrong, so I won't address that crap. I will, however, point out that it's hilarious of you to point out that we have some preconceived notions, when it's you who frames your fundamental misunderstanding of feminism as some kind of deep insight.

Feminism isn't about ""traditional sexual relations" are neccesarily slavery and barbarism". It's a bullshit claim. Feminism is about individual freedom, the freedom to live your life without being shackled by your gender. You completely ignore that point, you claim that since some women were happy in their role, all must have been happy in that role. Which is a bullshit claim. The problem is that they didn't really have a choice in the matter. Suppression of sexuality, arbitrarily limiting access to education and scientific work (Maria Skłodowska Curie ring any bells?), and of course, the issue of political rights. Which isn't a sketchy subject, as you try to claim. Denying basic political rights to people is a shitty thing to do.

And it continues today. Professions being considered masculine or feminine, despite the fact that there is no practical difference between genders when they are employed, limiting the ability of both men and women to live their lives as they want to, according to their abilities, rather than what they have between their legs. Plus, the whole host of other problems, except I really don't feel like a person who has no problem with domestic violence has the mental-fucking-capacity to understand them.

I like how Tagz skips over all the posts and quotes Vault17 instead because of course his unconscious is like: "I can beat him and look rightious while doing it!"

Mostly because I don't feel like dealing with people who align themselves with monsters from 4chan, for whom mass shootings are a cause for celebration. And yes, your propagation of slurs like SJW is part of the problem, Akratus.
 
Vault17 said:
Now it's my turn to say your choice of words is telling. "Shoving" them in the kitchen? Are you implying that all women at all periods hated being a housewife, did not want to be there, did not want to do their part in making the home? How do you know there were not women out there who loved it, saw it as their calling and purpose, what they were meant for?
I'm sure there were. Of course, no one is advocating for forbidding anyone from being a housewife if they want to. The point is that in the past and to a lesser extent in the present, many women don't actually have a real choice in the matter. That's the point.

Akratus said:
There's plenty of feminists with a (relatively) good sense of humour, what you're talking about is SJW's.
See, "SJW's" (apostrophes don't pluralize words in English) have a sense of humor. They just think your humor is shit.
 
Back
Top