The Idiocy Of Feminism

Feminism solely exists on the metanarrative that men have systematically oppressed and subjugated women throughout history where through collective guilt guided by the eternal illusions of moral judgement men must pay for their sins by that of penance by allowing women to enjoy the same dominion and domain of men.

Without the illusions of guilt or the false notions of absolute morality that is foundation of feminism through moral judgement feminism could not exist on it's own since nature would eventually re-assert itself that is the nature of men who naturally aspire towards domination and conquest would assert itself all over again.

What they fail to recognize or understand is that men have historically only acted on their own pre-determined natural instincts by that of biology, evolution, and nature itself.

It is man's natural instinct to dominate, conquer, rule, and take whatever he wants.

Ironically feminism only exists by defamation founded upon guilt like subjugation of men or in otherwords feminism only exists as a luxory of the same very oppressive patriarchy they despise and condemn allows.

Afterall without the guilt subjugation of men by playing the card of victimization feminism could not exist therefore feminism only exists as a luxory to what men themselves allow to exist.

Therefore feminism exists solely on the portrayal of women as victims of men thus reasserting ironically that women are the more fragile of the sexes.

Womans is only good for one thing...

that's makin' my sammiches and poppin' my churdrin.

I guess that's 2.


I'm sorry was that the call of the old fashioned redneck having his manhood raped from his soul?

Why, yes- yes I believe it was.

If you want things to go back to the way they should be, you're going to have to change the state of the world beforehand. You can't expect women to turn down simple tasks, because that would be withholding her from her abilities.

Unless you're in the construction business or doing any hard manual labor job, women have just as much of a right to working, voting, and everything else that goes with feminism.

So move to a rural village and then we'll talk.

The Fool wrote:

Feminism solely exists on the metanarrative that men have systematically oppressed and subjugated women throughout history where through collective guilt guided by the eternal illusions of moral judgement men must pay for their sins by that of penance by allowing women to enjoy the same dominion and domain of men.

Without the illusions of guilt or the false notions of absolute morality that is foundation of feminism through moral judgement feminism could not exist on it's own since nature would eventually re-assert itself that is the nature of men who naturally aspire towards domination and conquest would assert itself all over again.

What they fail to recognize or understand is that men have historically only acted on their own pre-determined natural instincts by that of biology, evolution, and nature itself.

It is man's natural instinct to dominate, conquer, rule, and take whatever he wants.

Ironically feminism only exists by defamation founded upon guilt like subjugation of men or in otherwords feminism only exists as a luxory of the same very oppressive patriarchy they despise and condemn allows.

Afterall without the guilt subjugation of men by playing the card of victimization feminism could not exist therefore feminism only exists as a luxory to what men themselves allow to exist.

Therefore feminism exists solely on portray women as victims of men thus reasserting ironically that women are the more fragile of the sexes.

1) well, they could kill all men in the womb.
2) most feminists recognize that men are, on average, physically stronger.
3) you are assuming that only guilt would be a motivation for a man treating women as equals. That's absurd.

Quote :

Woman is only good for one thing...

You can say that again.

But to be fair and to be somewhat nice ( somthing I'm usually not most of the time.) they are good for companionship or friendship in a sort of conflictive symbiosis.

Quote :

that's makin' my sammiches and poppin' my churdrin.

Quote :

I'm sorry was that the call of the old fashioned redneck having his manhood raped from his soul?

Why, yes- yes I believe it was.

Not really. Just showing the obvious reality that feminism can't exist without appropiated guilt by subterfuge guided by illusions and superstitions of moral judgement by denying men their natural instincts or emotions.

Now if someone here wants to offer some intelligent opposition I shall welcome it in that I didn't create this thread for nothing.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

If you want things to go back to the way they should be, you're going to have to change the state of the world beforehand. You can't expect women to turn down simple tasks, because that would be withholding her from her abilities.

Unless you're in the construction business or doing any hard manual labor job, women have just as much of a right to working, voting, and everything else that goes with feminism.

So move to a rural village and then we'll talk.

No need to change somthing that cannot be changed. Besides in the end human nature always convenes for what we see today is just a temporary social expiriment bounded to failure.

I'd much rather observe in amusement the expirimental failure of so called social progressives as all their ideals blow up in their own faces.

( It's much more fun that way.)

Quote :

Creasy says:

1) well, they could kill all men in the womb.
2) most feminists recognize that men are, on average, physically stronger.
3) you are assuming that only guilt would be a motivation for a man treating women as equals. That's absurd.

1) That would be biologically self defeating
2) Now if only they will recognize men as being more creative and inventive leaving women to be at best really effective imitators or copyists of their masculine counterparts. How many historical and present female scientists, philosophers, inventors, or physicists are there in comparison to men?
3) Of course that's not the only motivation. If men deceptively act as women's benign virtuous protectors and liberators of equality it just makes it all the more easier to get to the sweet spot that drives men's existence in the first place. A woman likes nothing more than a man who will save her as a damsel in distress. Let's face it all men have to do is pretend that the opposite sex is his equal in order to get what they truely want. ( Sexual motivation.)

The Fool wrote:

Feminism solely exists on the metanarrative that men have systematically oppressed and subjugated women throughout history where through collective guilt guided by the eternal illusions of moral judgement men must pay for their sins by that of penance by allowing women to enjoy the same dominion and domain of men.

Without the illusions of guilt or the false notions of absolute morality that is foundation of feminism through moral judgement feminism could not exist on it's own since nature would eventually re-assert itself that is the nature of men who naturally aspire towards domination and conquest would assert itself all over again.

That's exactly true, which is why Anarchy is necessarily a 'male' mentality, and also why it does not last long in history.

Chaos may be a real possibility for the Dominion of Man, but not for too long. Order predominates.

The Fool wrote:

What they fail to recognize or understand is that men have historically only acted on their own pre-determined natural instincts by that of biology, evolution, and nature itself.

It is man's natural instinct to dominate, conquer, rule, and take whatever he wants.

Ironically feminism only exists by defamation founded upon guilt like subjugation of men or in otherwords feminism only exists as a luxory of the same very oppressive patriarchy they despise and condemn allows.

You should also note too that Feminism is almost entirely a Christian ideology by definition.

Feminists are the direct result of Christ(ian) decaying before a Godless world. -- a severe increase in Guilt.

The result of this is that Man cannot even think of "sex" without being guilty of a thought-crime. Human sexuality then becomes controlled between & by the Haves and the Have-nots: male and female models.

The Fool wrote:

Afterall without the guilt subjugation of men by playing the card of victimization feminism could not exist therefore feminism only exists as a luxory to what men themselves allow to exist.

Therefore feminism exists solely on the portrayal of women as victims of men thus reasserting ironically that women are the more fragile of the sexes.

You can take this further and apply it directly to Christianity. Christ is the "feminized" Man. If you stand against the world as a male, then you shall be taken down and crucified. It's about the Master & Slave dialect. Once you admit that you are weak, whether you are male or female, then the rules go out the window and Anarchy is probable. Christ was the first "weak male", who admit his weakness before God. -- the separation between Man and God.

This line of logic goes as far as you can desire to take it: if you expose your own weakness, then it has a twofold impact or implication. You either 1) allow yourself to become stronger, or 2) display to all others who believes they are strong. You may then play the part of Hero before the Tyrant or whatever else you wish to do. If you are truly weak, then what can you do except become stronger? If you are truly strong, then why even respond to weakness of any kind?

You wouldn't. You would stay silent. Feminism is loud insofar as it is weak, an exposition of its fatal flaw.

If Woman were strong, then she would not speak. Ironically, beautiful women do not need to speak (nor do they)...

I would also like to make a critical yet cruel observation:

If women were not the more fragile of the sexes wouldn't they not allowed themselves to be subjugated the last 1000 years or so?

( Of course even today in some countries outside of the West they are still subjugated as a rule to this day.
The liberated woman is only a Western luxory so far.)

The Fool wrote:

If women were not the more fragile of the sexes wouldn't they not allowed themselves to be subjugated the last 1000 years or so?

To answer your question: No, they would not allow themselves to be subjugated.

I fundamentally believe that women cannot conceive the concept of Power. They need men to do it for them.

If they did conceive such a thing, then they would be able to differentiate exactly what you are saying, but they can't. Instead, women biologically & physically feel that subjugation, emotional manipulation, multiplicity, and deception are all a Strength rather than a Weakness, when this is not true by definition. It is an inversion and perversion of the physical difference between the male and female body. Her dignity is then reflected by how she uses the Strength of numbers and quantity rather than the Strength of reason and quality. She cannot even fathom the latter by definition. If she did, then Feminism could not even exist as a possibility. It would contain no logical consistency...


I fundamentally believe that the fact of the matter rests with the human animal, Woman, actually-physically believing that her submission to Man and his relevant Power is Power. Though, she is wrong. It is an inversion of Power, a femininity of Spirit.

That is why that men are also unimpressed by groups, but rather, individual men. Hitler was the Leader of the Nazi Party. We do not say that the Nazi Party is responsible for WWII. We say it was Hitler instead. This runs contrary to everything Feminism teaches.

Thus, I believe that Philosophers should conclude, women have no fucking clue what they're talking about when it comes to both Reason & Philosophy, which is also why there are no such thing as "women/female philosophers".

The Fool wrote:

1) That would be biologically self defeating

And? The way men have dominated women has brought us very close to extinction at times. And the stupidity continues. And this was not via killing of women, but via the imbalances of keeping women out of decision-making.

Quote :

2) Now if only they will recognize men as being more creative and inventive leaving women to be at best really effective imitators or copyists of their masculine counterparts. How many historical and present female scientists, philosophers, inventors, or physicists are there in comparison to men?

Have you ever actually read a feminist book? Do you understand what they are saying? Or do you have second hand ideas about it? because that is how this coms across. I could explain the various problems with your question, but the question itself shows that you are criticizing something you know little about.

Quote :

3) Of course that's not the only motivation. If men deceptively act as women's benign virtuous protectors and liberators of equality it just makes it all the more easier to get to the sweet spot that drives men's existence in the first place. A woman likes nothing more than a man who will save her as a damsel in distress. Let's face it all men have to do is pretend that the opposite sex is his equal in order to get what they truely want. ( Sexual motivation.)

And so you have expanded your motivations to guilt and manipulation. At root this shows a very dim view of your own sex. You are also wrong: these are not the only motivations.

A couple of afterthoughts:
1) which part of feminism are you talking about? do you have problems with women's right to vote which came out of feminism? Do you think women should not be lawyers or doctors, possibilities that were aided by feminism? Feminists made it possible for women to have some legal recourse if they are raped by their husbands. Was that wrong?
2) You idea of what intelligence is is very limited.

The Fool wrote:

I would also like to make a critical yet cruel observation:

If women were not the more fragile of the sexes wouldn't they not allowed themselves to be subjugated the last 1000 years or so?

( Of course even today in some countries outside of the West they are still subjugated as a rule to this day.
The liberated woman is only a Western luxory so far.)

First you are framing the issue in terms of fragility. Very few feminists, I mean a drop in a swimming pool would argue with the fact that men are physically stronger in a fight. Then you imply that the denial of this fragility is the primary message of feminism, which it is not, and this is part of why I think you also know very little about feminism, and likely only second or third hand. (not to mention how narrow it seems you are defining 'fragility'. I mean, shit, how many rock songs are fragile men complaing about, yearning for or dissing women? how much rap and hip hop? Let alone certain kinds of medical fragility men have in comparison with women or the psychological taking men perform without noticing it until the woman gets bored or pulls back because he never listens)

You are also seeing feminism as a primarily (actually solely) a complaint or angry request aimed at men: 'Give us equal power', when, in fact most feminist literature has been written with women as an audiance in mind.

Via this woman to woman communication, women did, in fact, take back powers they had much earlier in history and up to the present in some cultures. IOW feminist literature and political work was in fact effective, and not as a request, but as a taking. Further I would guess you think many facets of what feminists have fought for are just fine.

Or do you think women should be restricted to the kitchen and bedroom, that they cannot possibly be raped by their husbands, that women who are raped are asking for it, that women should not have the vote, that women should not be allowed to work in traditionally male fields and so on?

The Fool wrote:

The liberated woman is only a Western luxory so far

And you still haven't found correlation...

The problem with many men is that they are so decrepit and governed by instincts that theya re willing to fuck just about anything with two legs and a pulse

This gives women the wrong impression that they matter. they take their ability to manipulate such undiscriminating morons, by using their sexual promise, as evidence that they are in cotnrol of males...or all males.

Funny thing is that in my perspective concerning consciuosness and discrimiantion the mind that is most aware is all the more selective, and so a truly masculine entity is intolerable of anything beneath its acceptable standards, making most women, no matter how sexy they may be, insignificant to them as potential males.

For these men a special kind of woman is sought after.
A woman that may not be as intelligent as him but one that is no less selective and discriminating as to whom she allows into her intimate circle.

Quote :

And? The way men have dominated women has brought us very close to extinction at times. And the stupidity continues.

And so the meta-narrative of men being destructive and evil creatures as a oppressive patriarchy continues.

What about women? Oh we shall not talk about them since under feminism women are innocent and the more enlightened of the sexes guided by a absolute moral framework of knowing objectivity. ( Almost as if they themselves were divine creatures guided by miraculous universals.)

Women haven't done nothing to destroy the world or harm it like men. Women are afterall innocent.

Where's the root problem of the world? It's men!

Quote :

And this was not via killing of women, but via the imbalances of keeping women out of decision-making.

Sure. Men need women in decision making because of their purity, innocence, enlightenment, and spirituality.

Afterall only men can do wrong.

Without women men would be lost forever in giant cataclysm or abyss!

Quote :

Have you ever actually read a feminist book?

Actually I have and on many occasions.

Quote :

Do you understand what they are saying? Or do you have second hand ideas about it? because that is how this coms across. I could explain the various problems with your question, but the question itself shows that you are criticizing something you know little about.

I'll tell you what, why don't you tell me what feminism means to you? Then we'll continue from there.

I'll be willing to put aside my own opinions about feminism down for a bit if you are willing to give your definition of it.

Quote :

And so you have expanded your motivations to guilt and manipulation. At root this shows a very dim view of your own sex.

To be fair my dim views go beyond men themselves for the entirety of the human race.

Quote :

You are also wrong: these are not the only motivations.

What am I wrong about?

Quote :

A couple of afterthoughts:
1) which part of feminism are you talking about? do you have problems with women's right to vote which came out of feminism? Do you think women should not be lawyers or doctors, possibilities that were aided by feminism? Feminists made it possible for women to have some legal recourse if they are raped by their husbands. Was that wrong?

2) You idea of what intelligence is is very limited.

My root problem with feminism is it's constant denial of men's natural instincts by it's subterfuge of defamation and propagated guilt. It denies masculinism all the while through political correctness make men into somthing their not.

Then there is the feminist collaberation of redefining men under emasculative definitions.

I also can't stand feminism for it's moral judgements tied into history especially when there are no objectivity in them where it pretends that there is without facts or evidence. ( Especially when morality or ethics itself is not factual but merely subjective opinion built within invented super meta-narratives.)

I also despise feminism for what it has done to the traditional family unit. ( Specifically the disruption of it.)

I can't stand the reverse polarity of the sexes where women expect everything from men where simultaneously men are to expect nothing from women because the so called moral civilized or chivalrous thing to do is serve women on hands and feet at their every beckoning call like a dog.

Should men expect anything from women? Hell no.

Under feminism or chivalry the patriarchy functions only to serve women as penance for their sins of the past and if men lackies behave they'll be given the keys to the promised land.
( The keys to a woman's chastity belt as recognition of giving into her feminist wiles. Afterall women love to extort men's need to mate.)

creasy wrote:

The Fool wrote:

I would also like to make a critical yet cruel observation:

If women were not the more fragile of the sexes wouldn't they not allowed themselves to be subjugated the last 1000 years or so?

( Of course even today in some countries outside of the West they are still subjugated as a rule to this day.
The liberated woman is only a Western luxory so far.)

First you are framing the issue in terms of fragility. Very few feminists, I mean a drop in a swimming pool would argue with the fact that men are physically stronger in a fight. Then you imply that the denial of this fragility is the primary message of feminism, which it is not, and this is part of why I think you also know very little about feminism, and likely only second or third hand. (not to mention how narrow it seems you are defining 'fragility'. I mean, shit, how many rock songs are fragile men complaing about, yearning for or dissing women? how much rap and hip hop? Let alone certain kinds of medical fragility men have in comparison with women or the psychological taking men perform without noticing it until the woman gets bored or pulls back because he never listens)

You are also seeing feminism as a primarily (actually solely) a complaint or angry request aimed at men: 'Give us equal power', when, in fact most feminist literature has been written with women as an audiance in mind.

Via this woman to woman communication, women did, in fact, take back powers they had much earlier in history and up to the present in some cultures. IOW feminist literature and political work was in fact effective, and not as a request, but as a taking. Further I would guess you think many facets of what feminists have fought for are just fine.

Or do you think women should be restricted to the kitchen and bedroom, that they cannot possibly be raped by their husbands, that women who are raped are asking for it, that women should not have the vote, that women should not be allowed to work in traditionally male fields and so on?

Actually I look at feminism as a complaint against historical cultures that have been primarily patriarchic.

And ironically the nations where alot of feminism exists today have historically been patriarchic.

Western civilization the location of modern feminism's birth is historically patriarchic.

You can't tell me that the entire cultural history around the world has been matriarchic because there have always been cultures that have been the polar opposite. I would also debate that within so called matriarchic cultures if women have more power and influence in contrast to men as feminists contend.

Quote :

Or do you think women should be restricted to the kitchen and bedroom, that they cannot possibly be raped by their husbands, that women who are raped are asking for it, that women should not have the vote, that women should not be allowed to work in traditionally male fields and so on?

To be honest I don't really care. I don't have moral or ethical beliefs in that through my perspectives such definitions are useless.

I have no problem with societies where women are dominated and subjugated by men.

As for rape I have no problem with that either.

However in contrast I don't have a problem with modern nations where women work and have high social prestiges either.

Either direction I don't really care.

My main problems with feminism is:

1) How it defines men.
2) How it tries to moralize nature
3) How it disrupts the traditional family unit.
4) How it tries to define the social roles of men by fictitious moral judgements
5) How it marginalizes the differences between the sexes.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

The Fool wrote:

The liberated woman is only a Western luxory so far

And you still haven't found correlation...

What correlation should I be trying to find?

I think your whining about feminists is worse than the actual feminists. Feminism was inevitable to modernity. Get over it or get a kick in the nuts.

If I remember correctly...wasn't it the invention of the telephone lines that gave women their first real jobs where they could sit there and operate the machines?

The Fool wrote:

And so the meta-narrative of men being destructive and evil creatures as a oppressive patriarchy continues.....[rest elided]

So you sum up my position but actually create a new one AND assume that summing up someone's position is an argument.

Quote :

And this was not via killing of women, but via the imbalances of keeping women out of decision-making.

Quote :

Actually I have and on many occasions.

Well, then there must have been some serious misreading. And in your response to me and what I must mean about men, you continue maknig assumptions that are incorrect.

Quote :

What am I wrong about?

That the motivations will either be guilt or cynical manipulation on men's part.

Quote :

A couple of afterthoughts:
1) which part of feminism are you talking about? do you have problems with women's right to vote which came out of feminism? Do you think women should not be lawyers or doctors, possibilities that were aided by feminism? Feminists made it possible for women to have some legal recourse if they are raped by their husbands. Was that wrong?

2) You idea of what intelligence is is very limited.

Quote :

My root problem with feminism is it's constant denial of men's natural instincts by it's subterfuge of defamation and propagated guilt. It denies masculinism all the while through political correctness make men into somthing their not.

Then there is the feminist collaberation of redefining men under emasculative definitions.

I also can't stand feminism for it's moral judgements tied into history especially when there are no objectivity in them where it pretends that there is without facts or evidence. ( Especially when morality or ethics itself is not factual but merely subjective opinion built within invented super meta-narratives.)

I also despise feminism for what it has done to the traditional family unit. ( Specifically the disruption of it.)

I can't stand the reverse polarity of the sexes where women expect everything from men where simultaneously men are to expect nothing from women because the so called moral civilized or chivalrous thing to do is serve women on hands and feet at their every beckoning call like a dog.

Should men expect anything from women? Hell no.

Under feminism or chivalry the patriarchy functions only to serve women as penance for their sins of the past and if men lackies behave they'll be given the keys to the promised land.
( The keys to a woman's chastity belt as recognition of giving into her feminist wiles. Afterall women love to extort men's need to mate.)

I notice you did not address the specific issues I mentioned. What you do do is keep the issue very general so you can whine about feminists and feel victimized. Avoiding addressing specific issues feminists have written about or struggled to affect society around is evasive.

Identify their position with the most extreme wing of it.
Summarize it in a way that allows you the most victim anger.
Ignore the effects of feminism that would be hard to argue against.
Pretend that any men who support any facets of feminism must be acting out of guilt or manipulation (iow project your own psychology on all men).

A great way to reinforce you own dichotemous view of things.
But a waste of time as a discussion.
Bye-

The Fool wrote:

Actually I look at feminism as a complaint against historical cultures that have been primarily patriarchic.

And ironically the nations where alot of feminism exists today have historically been patriarchic.

It should be obvious that it was far more than a complaint but actually a movement that enacted changes in society.

Quote :

You can't tell me that the entire cultural history around the world has been matriarchic because there have always been cultures that have been the polar opposite.

and you can't tell me all fish are purple. What is it with you people and strawmen arguments.

Quote :

To be honest I don't really care. I don't have moral or ethical beliefs in that through my perspectives such definitions are useless.

Sure you do. But only when it affects you. You are going to get into your own morals below, when you talk about your 'problem' with feminism. You are like a lot of people who like to think of themselves as not having morals, but when push comes to shove - ie. all the time - they whine and complain about the morals and actions of other, sometimes trying to be consistent by not using traditional morality words.

Quote :

As for rape I have no problem with that either.

My main problems with feminism is:

1) How it defines men.
2) How it tries to moralize nature
3) How it disrupts the traditional family unit.
4) How it tries to define the social roles of men by fictitious moral judgements
5) How it marginalizes the differences between the sexes.

Oh, poor you. You start out with the swagger.

'I am a tough realist. There are no morals. Rape is fine with me.'

and then begin the whining and moralizing....

'But don't define me. That's bad. But I won't use that word 'bad' or 'immoral' when I whine about their badness.'

Perhaps if someone hacked into this site, got your IP, took a road trip to where you post from and anally raped you, you might find that your whining broadened to include both rape and being defined.

But in the airy, disconnected realm you fantasize in, you
1) think you don't have morals and
2) have no idea what life is like

This Satyr wanna-be club is truly fucked up. You want to be where he is in 20 years? Maintaining his false self-image by dissing guys 20 years younger than himself?

You deserve your role model, the lot of you.
Pathetic.

I haven't been following the discussion but I offer my comments on the last post.

creasy wrote:

It should be obvious that it was far more than a complaint but actually a movement that enacted changes in society.

Change towards what ideal and who invented this ideal?
Surely not females.

Quote :

and you can't tell me all fish are purple. What is it with you people and strawmen arguments.

No, dear, but all fish live in water, and some fish display a common behavior because they are part of the same species.
You are using a strawman, here.

Quote :

Sure you do. But only when it affects you. You are going to get into your own morals below, when you talk about your 'problem' with feminism. You are like a lot of people who like to think of themselves as not having morals, but when push comes to shove - ie. all the time - they whine and complain about the morals and actions of other, sometimes trying to be consistent by not using traditional morality words.

There is no such thing as an amoral person.

Morality is based on a good/bad distinction.
What is often called morality is the culturally defined one; the morality of the communal decree, as opposed to the good/bad judgment of the individual.

Quote :

Oh, poor you. First with the swagger.

'I am a tough realist. There are not morals. Rape is fine with me. But don't define me. That's bad. But I won't use that word 'bad' or 'immoral' when I whine about their badness.'

Perhaps if someone hacked into this site got your IP, took a road trip to where you post from and anally raped you, you might find that your whining broadened to include both rape and being defined.

see, now you are confusing emotinoal reactions to rational ones.
anyone will emotionally react to what threatens him...but rationally violence is neither good or bad...it just is how the universe works.

This is the difference between a subjective and an objective opinion.

Quote :

But in the airy, disconnected realm you fantasize in, you
1) think you don't have morals and
2) have no idea what life is like for other people

Another emotinoal decree, claiming that empathy always results in compassion.

Hunters have been using empathy to hunt their prey, since man began hunting.

Quote :

This Satyr wanna-be club is truly fucked up.

Is it any more "fucked up" than the anxious conformist, afraid that her safety net will be filled with holes and her delusions exposed as self-serving, subjective, lies?

Do you equate intelligence with age?
Then we shall wait for you to grow a brain 20 years from now.

Until then, be happy in yuor fantasies.
How truly sad.

Quote :

So you sum up my position but actually create a new one AND assume that summing up someone's position is an argument.

Well isn't it your position or not? I'm still waiting for a definition of your brand of feminism.

Quote :

Well, then there must have been some serious misreading. And in your response to me and what I must mean about men, you continue maknig assumptions that are incorrect.

If I'm incorrect and misreading things by all means correct me in this thread as I like learning not to mention I like challenges even when they are directed at me.

Quote :

That the motivations will either be guilt or cynical manipulation on men's part.

I know that a large part of feminism deals with the independence and liberation of women but it is from what that I call into question.

Quote :

I notice you did not address the specific issues I mentioned.

What would you have me address?

Quote :

What you do do is keep the issue very general so you can whine about feminists and feel victimized.

I don't feel victimized. I don't play the victim my dear friend as I get even.

However to be fair I was complaining and last time I checked everyone does at some point of their lives as it is their existential choice to do so.

Quote :

Avoiding addressing specific issues feminists have written about or struggled to affect society around is evasive.

What would you have me address?

Quote :

Identify their position with the most extreme wing of it.

To be fair this thread is a critique of feminism where you are going to get views that are so called extremist positions by the accepted views of populism.

Quote :

Ignore the effects of feminism that would be hard to argue against.

I could only appreciate the effects of feminism if I was a woman however as a man I view it more as a nuisance than anything.

How can I as a man appreciate the effects of feminism especially when it degrades my sex?

Quote :

Pretend that any men who support any facets of feminism must be acting out of guilt or manipulation (iow project your own psychology on all men).

Well to be fair there are men who support it to look noble in front of their female counterparts as to gain their sexual affections when they are not being sucked into it by guilt or manipulation.

Quote :

A great way to reinforce you own dichotemous view of things.

Well instead of ridiculing me perhaps you can tell me why my view on things are flawed.

Don't retreat in flight. Fight!

Quote :

It should be obvious that it was far more than a complaint but actually a movement that enacted changes in society.

Changes enacted out of complaints. They didn't call it the woman's rights movement for nothing.

Rights is just another crude word for entitlement and the want for entitlement comes usually from a complaint.

Quote :

Sure you do.

I don't have morals I have opinions. There is a difference between morals and opinions.

Unlike my friend satyr here I do believe complete amoral people can exist and I view myself as one of them.

Quote :

You are going to get into your own morals below, when you talk about your 'problem' with feminism. You are like a lot of people who like to think of themselves as not having morals, but when push comes to shove - ie. all the time - they whine and complain about the morals and actions of other, sometimes trying to be consistent by not using traditional morality words.

I complain out of opinion.

Quote :

Perhaps if someone hacked into this site, got your IP, took a road trip to where you post from and anally raped you, you might find that your whining broadened to include both rape and being defined.

And when I greet them with a rifle and bullet between their eyes I wouldn't have to worry about anything would I?

Quote :

1) think you don't have morals and

I don't. And I think it is silly for a person who knows little of me to tell what I do and don't believe in.

Quote :

2) have no idea what life is like

I know what life is thank you very much. I just don't view life as kind, gentle, and compassionate place as you might.

Quote :

This Satyr wanna-be club is truly fucked up.

You can always retreat from this place permanently if you wish showing your inability to have a debate or you can take the challenge of proving your point at this place. Your choice. Your next move.

Quote :

You want to be where he is in 20 years?

I don't know much about Satyr apart from the internet to give an opinion about him however I do like alot of his views.

Quote :

You deserve your role model, the lot of you.
Pathetic.

Who's complaining now?

The Fool wrote:

You want to be where he is in 20 years?

The embedded threat, warning.

Where is Satyr?
Satyr is a divorced male, with a child, not unlike many of his contemporaries, he works 3 days a week and does what he likes for the other 4.
Satyr has worked in many.

Satyr goes on line to find challenges to his positions and finds nothing but nitwits, like her, full of personal assaults and no substance.
Satyr loves life, but hates many of the people that do not deserve to live.

Satyr has a mind.

Quote :

Unlike my friend satyr here I do believe complete amoral people can exist and I view myself as one of them.

I, unlike you perhaps, follow morality back it its existential roots.

Just as gender roles are adaptations of sexual, biological roles, so are morals adaptations of simple survival tactics of discrimination, between the useful and the not useful or the good from the bad.
As such no living organism lacks this basic discrimiantion.

That it can be used as a common rule, where the mind is integrated by associating its identity with a communal one or a socially productive one, and that some reject this and call themselves amoralists, is an interesting issues.

One can reject the Self so as to fully accept the self.

Why do humans seek to limit?

1) Who defines men? Are men or women definable? What is an Indian? Is an Indian any different to a German?
2) Eh? Humans moralise, generally speaking.
3) What is the traditional family unit?
4) You what?
5) Are you suggesting that such differences are anything other than socially constructed outside the need to breed, that is?

American pioneer frontier women. Native american women. What would they think about and compare to the squealing, mini skirted, high heel wearing twits crawling around American shopping malls?

maryshelley wrote:

Why do humans seek to limit?

1) Who defines men? Are men or women definable?

Nature defines men.

Quote :

What is an Indian? Is an Indian any different to a German?

his past determines his essence...not man...nature and the circumstances of his natural selection.

Germans are not different from Indians accidentally or superficially they are so due to particular environmental conditions which each one inherits. If this is not so then all species distinctions are similarly superficial and nothing can be said about anything based no appearances.

Grow, the fuck, up!!!

Quote :

2) Eh? Humans moralise, generally speaking.

Humans moralize to ensure what is beneficial to them is established as a communal rule.

Quote :

3) What is the traditional family unit?

One based on the original intent of any sexual intercourse: reproduction.
A relationship that does not or can never produce offspring is one antithetical to the original intent of sex and is either a psychological union or a social construct...or both.

Grow, the fuck, up!!!

Quote :

4) You what?

What?

Quote :

5) Are you suggesting that such differences are anything other than socially constructed outside the need to breed, that is?

The need to breed is what produced the distinction between sexes....without it there is no reason for male to be other than female.
Sex doesn't evolve to satisfy your needs.

Quote :

American pioneer frontier women. Native american women. What would they think about and compare to the squealing, mini skirted, high heel wearing twits crawling around American shopping malls?

Not much, i suspect.

sheltering and feminization is not restricted to only males.

Being a spoiled, pampered, demanding, weak, prissy female is what feminization is.