Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
I'm not seeing much of it in action. It's there in sparse moments in YouTube and Facebook comments which is encouraging but given how pervasive feminism's influence is along with gynocentrism in general, it's unlikely to change anything.
You and I seem to live on two different planets, or more like, focusing on different things. I focus on the productive mainstream feminism, the down-to-earth everyday feminism that is the women's rights movement, whereas you focus on the crazies, vindictives and the opportunists, which is a loud but tiny part of the overall movement. Just like Islamists, the radical extremists of the movement want to be heard and are often the most vocal, and the people scared and hateful of the entire feminist movement, which is usually right-wingers, are more than happy to support that picture as it vilifies feminism as a whole. As whiterabbit said - it's the extremists that screws it all up. Being anti-feminist is the same as supporting right-wing sexists as well as the feminazis as it empowers them.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
Any why do you think that is exactly? It goes a bit beyond muh soggy knees, as you're probably thinking.
Yeah, wonder why? Could it be that any attempt of women organizing themselves, striving for equal rights and opportunity, have been fought hard and shot down before gaining traction. If it wasn't for women starting working during WWII and all that followed, the women's right movement would've been pretty bloody. Women showed men that they are just as capable as them and are more than just baby machines and pretty things for men to look at. Even so, the women's rights were always demonized and vilified by men and conservative women and always under fire, bad-mouthed and trash talked, doing everything to give it a bad name and burry it.
That's why.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
Oh God man. Because the radicals are the ones who are writing books (Dworkin, Solanis [they may be dead but their influence on modern day feminism is unquestionable. Just look at Jessica Valenti, writer for the freaking Guardian]), drafting policy (Hillary Clinton), or teaching in academia (Adele Mercier, Elizabeth Sheehy [the former is a bona fide rape enabler, the latter advocates for spousal (read male) murder).
Yes, they do write books. So does people with less radical ideas and concepts.
Hillary Clinton being a radical is laughable and Solanis is more of a theoretical think-tank person working conceptually, trying to open people's eyes like an artist. After all she was a friend and colleague of Warhol & the Factory.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
Except that Muslims make regular attempts at distancing themselves from radicals and some rather major attempts at that. So yeah, I can other ideologies like feminism to the same standard. Muslims make an honest effort to weed out those retards. I can't say the same for feminists.
Well, they/we do. Feminists question each other.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
I'm against none of those things. What I am against is totalitarianism and authoritarian control which is what feminism is. Heck, it's pretty much been that since the suffrage movement.
No, it is not. It is not totalitarian or authoritarian, but it is organized for very obvious reasons (*scared shitless white men in power).
It sounds like you think the women should've stopped fighting for their rights mid- to late 19th century since women had it so good 1890...
Listen to yourself Doom.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
And you sir are making the assumption that women everywhere call themselves feminists. Not every feminist is female, anymore than every female is a feminist. I know you've heard of Women Against Feminism.
Yes I've heard about Women Against Feminism. There are also African-Americans that are for slavery and wish that the South had won. What is your point?
Like I said, a lot of people don't want to call themselves feminist in public or at all because the name has been so defiled, both by feminizes but most of all by conservatives and reactionaries in general. The latter are in power more or less worldwide, the former not so much.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 18, 2015, 01:03:08 AM
Credit where it's due: shouting at feminism and feminists is absolutely not the way to go about it. That's why I no longer label myself as an MRA or visit AVFM. It's all they ever seem to do. They're more interested in getting in shouting matches with feminists on Twitter or catching them in "Gotcha!" moments which go nowhere. So maybe you proved a feminist on the internet wrong about something. So what? Now what? Who cares? What have you done to help advance the cause of men? I'm more interested in tackling traditionalism and gynocentrism, the root cause of most of gender-related problems in my eyes.
Tradtitionalism? And how did those traditions, systems and structures come to be? Who enforced them? Who were in power?
Traditionalism is directly patriarchal since our civilization is patriarchal. Gynocentrism is the direct effect of women being ignored through most of our history except for being some kind of sub-human asset or device for men to control and toil with.
QuoteWhat you call patriarchy, I call traditionalism. Society operated the way it has for generations because they were born out of the biological need for survival, where men did the hunting and women did the nesting. Now, since we don't live in caves anymore, those gender roles don't mean much because both sexes need to do their fair share. The problem is that women (not feminists) aren't too keen on that whole "fair share" part. Everyday it seems like women are receiving some sort of handout to make their lives easier. And you may call me misogynistic, evil, patriarchal, whatever, I really don't care. When I hear about shit like hiring quotas or lowering the standards for women getting into the military or STEM fields, it makes me think that women aren't really interested in doing what it takes to succeed in life and would rather rely on Big Daddy government while shouting "I'M A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN". Feminists routinely push for that sort of thing because they aren't interested in equality. They want supremacy. As an example, forcing the military to lower their standards tells me that women just aren't as good as men. If a woman really can do anything a man can do and do it better like Gloria Steinem once said, what's with the handouts? Please tell me.
Parts of my paragraphs above apply for this as well.
Hiring quotas etc. are necessary to introduce a "minority" to a new field and to make the ball keep on rolling. It sounds really lame to men since we're used to do whatever we want to do - the world is ours.
Of course there is a limit to this as people will abuse it and we don't want standards to be too low. I'm not worried though, especially since there are tons of men, conservatives and even feminists out there who are very sceptic about the whole thing. It will level out eventually, at least as long as we continue working on equal rights and opportunity for all, and as women and minorities traditionally have had less rights and opportunities than (white) men, it is only natural that the focus should be on them reaching the same level of equality as (white) men.
QuoteI like you too man. You're insufferable at times, but what's a little friction amongst friends? ***
Yeah, well, that's the way things are! I don't think we're going to agree on anything when it comes to feminism as you and I have two completely different ideas and convictions about what feminism is.
Feel free to reply to this post if you feel like it, but I'll take my time to reply as these never-ending walls of text are quite exhausting, especially when you have to reply to three people at once...
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jul 18, 2015, 02:45:53 AM
These quote trees are too much for me to process. I'm starting to think the problem with the world is that too many words end in ism.
*manhugs everyone. Now isn't it Friday night... shouldn't we be out there corrupting the youth?
YEah, getting to be a little bit too much for me as well. Taking a break. I promise!
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jul 18, 2015, 02:45:53 AM
Actually SpreadEagleBeagle, what exactly does that nick mean. What comes too my mind is a Beagle Spreading Eagle. Which I guess you can't get more progressive than that. Am I close?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I picked the named while I was making a skate video where there was a segment with spread eagle tricks, and as witty as I am I used the song "Spread Eagle Beagle" by Melvins for that segment. It was during that time I also started hanging out on Alien forums (started with Alien Experience and then AVPGalaxy), probably around 2006-2007.
QuoteWhiterabbit is just the name of a site I used to mod at a long time ago that is now dead. It has no meaning. If anyone cared.
I thought you were a Jefferson Airplane fan or something.
Quote from: Hubbs on Jul 20, 2015, 03:57:37 AM
Yeah but come on, it was basically a terrorist attack, I've read up on it and it just sounds like bs to me. Why would he specifically target military personnel on military premises? oh and he's Muslim...I don't buy into what they're trying to sell. The main difference here is the attack was on American soil, not another country, I would have thought that makes a big difference.
You just can't help it, can you?
QuoteIf the White House can go all rainbow coloured for same sex marriage (when they should of stayed neutral) then half-staff for this doesn't seem much of a stretch, Jesus!
I honesty don't get your President, he makes some very odd decisions as if he's trying to upset people. I've never known America in such turmoil (in my lifetime).
I honesty don't get you, you make some very odd decisions as if you're trying to upset people. I've never known AVP Galaxy in such turmoil (in my lifetime).
If you knew anything about U.S. politics you would not put the blame solely on Obama for the U.S. being in turmoil. The Congress is Republican, the Senate is Republican, the Supreme Court has a Republican majority -- and as we all know the Republicans were "infiltrated" (...more like incorporated) and taken over by the freaking Tea Party, which is an extremist right-wing party and organization with no qualms whatsoever.
Their representatives (now mainstream Republican) announced right of the bat that they would do anything to make sure that Obama wouldn't get anything done during his presidency, even if it means that regular Americans is going to suffer from it, because that's the patriot thing to do, right?
They have vilified him, they turned their back to their own ideas as soon as Obama wanted to incorporate them (see so called "Obamacare", which is originally a Republican, quite capitalist plan and alternative to the socialist universal healthcare that people in the center and on the left promoted for), shutting down the government TWICE - the list goes on. If Obama says that the sky is blue, the Repubs will be outraged, tell you that the sky is as RED as Obama's Muslim Kenyan Communist heart, and they will demand him to apologize and preferably resign for being so audacious and divisive!
I am not a huge Obama fan or supporter as I think he's been too meek and not tough enough, especially considering the rabid werewolves he knew he would have to deal with. And I think he is way too lax with Wall Street, big corporations, Israel lobby and the war hawks out there. But when it comes to social issues he is definitely one of the Top 10 American Presidents hands down.
Also, why should they have staid neutral when it comes to gay marriage? Please elaborate, I'm curious...