Feminism, how do you think it affects society?

[squealpiggy]

It depends what you mean by "Islam". In the case of our suicide bombers it means "radical" Islam.

Feminism is a hate group and a cancer upon western society, has been since the 2nd wave hit in the 60s.

A "cancer" eh? Tell me again how feminism is a "hate group (sic)".

[fishscale]

A "cancer" eh? Tell me again how feminism is a "hate group (sic)".

There's too much to list, I'm not invested enough in the conversation to outline it all for you, a few google searches (eg: Agent Orange files, Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg, anything Harriet Harman) , history lessons (note: not womens studies version of history) and reading up of the laws/policies feminism has got approved in the last 40 or so years (Violence against women act, again: anything Harriet Harman, Family courts, false statistics which villify men) should be more than enough to convince you.

The most glaringly (and disturbing) aspect of it that I could point out to you would be the Feminist motto of "The personal is political" which effectively means what I or anyone else chooses to believe are matters of the state, which pretty much goes completely against the American Constitution and equates to Totalitarianism.

EDIT: Do take note of the fact I'm talking about 2nd wave feminism here, mind you, which began in the early 1960s, not the Suffragette movement of the early 1900s.

[squealpiggy]

There's too much to list, I'm not invested enough in the conversation to outline it all for you, a few google searches (eg: Agent Orange files, Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg, anything Harriet Harman) , history lessons (note: not womens studies version of history) and reading up of the laws/policies feminism has got approved in the last 40 or so years (Violence against women act, again: anything Harriet Harman, Family courts, false statistics which villify men) should be more than enough to convince you.

The most glaringly (and disturbing) aspect of it that I could point out to you would be the Feminist motto of "The personal is political" which effectively means what I or anyone else chooses to believe are matters of the state, which pretty much goes completely against the American Constitution and equates to Totalitarianism.

I don't get it. You repeatedly drop Harriet Harman's name and then reference the US constitution. Why? What does one have to do with the other?

The other names you dropped up there were Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg who is a crank who runs a bonkers theatre programme based on another crank Valerie Solanos and the Agent Orange files in which some internet dipshits spout nonsense. I mean if that's your standard of evidence then you could use some of the crap that is posted in NSB to prove that boxing fans are a "cancer on society".

Much of feminism, in particular third wave radical feminism, is woo and should be treated critically. If you're looking at tackling feminism it might be an idea to stop being so bitterly angry and stop pointing out internet trolls as evidence of widespread feminist hatred of men.

EDIT: Do take note of the fact I'm talking about 2nd wave feminism here, mind you, which began in the early 1960s, not the Suffragette movement of the early 1900s.

Second wave feminism (if you exclude the cranks) made gains in equality for women with regards to jobs and legal rights, reproductive rights and the rights of women to resist domestic violence.

But of course you're not going to ignore the cranks.

[fishscale]

I don't get it. You repeatedly drop Harriet Harman's name and then reference the US constitution. Why? What does one have to do with the other?

I did say "western society" didn't I? In which case I'm addressing general things which span across it, it's not just limited to a single country.

I referenced the US constitution because it was relevant to what I was saying. The motto of "The personal is political" does go directly against the American Constitution and is against our basic human rights. That was the MOTTO of 1960s feminism, we're not talking "cranks" here, that was the driving belief behind feminism of the 60s, 2nd wave feminism.

The other names you dropped up there were Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg who is a crank who runs a bonkers theatre programme based on another crank Valerie Solanos and the Agent Orange files in which some internet dipshits spout nonsense. I mean if that's your standard of evidence then you could use some of the crap that is posted in NSB to prove that boxing fans are a "cancer on society".

Just general names, I could list hundreds more but I'd hardly class a woman heavily supported by her feminist peers (support you can freely go see for yourself on any feminist forum) who owns a theater named after the SCUM (Society for cutting up men) manifesto (which many 2nd wave feminists supported) that routinely promotes the killing of men and "Straight Hate Day" as a simple "crank", a word you seem to use to quickly dismiss someone as not dangerous/psychotic which from what I've pointed out, I'm going to have to disagree with, her way of thinking and her actions/what she stands for are very dangerous. I dare say should a man do the equivalent to what she does he'd be imprisoned.

Much of feminism, in particular third wave radical feminism, is woo and should be treated critically. If you're looking at tackling feminism it might be an idea to stop being so bitterly angry and stop pointing out internet trolls as evidence of widespread feminist hatred of men.

That isn't all I pointed out though was it? You seemed to completely ignore the more important issues I pointed out, e.g VAWA, false statistics used to villify men, family courts etc.

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg as well I should add, it runs so much deeper than what I've listed I'd have to write several books on the matter quoting the thousands of different sources out there to even begin to cover a good portion of it.

Second wave feminism (if you exclude the cranks) made gains in equality for women with regards to jobs and legal rights, reproductive rights and the rights of women to resist domestic violence.

But of course you're not going to ignore the cranks.

Nazism (if you exclude the cranks) made great gains in medical science and rocket science which helped put man on the moon among other things.

But of course you're not going to ignore the cranks.

I hope you see how easy it is, you're doing what muslims do when faced with the sobering reality of their religion being hijacked by evil people, you dismiss the evil people as unimportant/not to be taken seriously when they're the complete opposite, the so called "cranks" of feminism are very important and should be taken seriously because it's their ilk who have done some very damaging things to our society and have had trojan laws/hateful laws approved among other things such as "rape culture" and "the patriarchy" which pollutes young, naive minds and turns people against each other.

[Derranged]

One negative effect of feminism is that it has created an epidemic of arrogant, conceited, self absorbed, selfish, pretentious, self entitled, unrealistically-picky twats who refuse to admit when they're wrong, accept culpability for their actions, who have condescending attitudes towards men and who cannot get over themselves.

They pretty much think that their gender is a built in excuse for anything.

Not saying that men are better, but feminism has created this gender war and it puts a strain on interpersonal relationships.

[squealpiggy]

I did say "western society" didn't I? In which case I'm addressing general things which span across it, it's not just limited to a single country.

Harriet Harman has nothing to do with the US constitution. You're making a connection where none exists.

I referenced the US constitution because it was relevant to what I was saying. The motto of "The personal is political" does go directly against the American Constitution and is against our basic human rights.

Not really. It means that personal problems are political problems, applicable to everything from economic disparity to discrimination against people with disabilities.

That was the MOTTO of 1960s feminism, we're not talking "cranks" here, that was the driving belief behind feminism of the 60s, 2nd wave feminism.

That was used in an essay by one feminist.

Just general names, I could list hundreds more

But I'd expect you to lead with your best example and for that you used a crank who runs a bizarro theatre and anonymous trolls on the internet.

[/quote]but I'd hardly class a woman heavily supported by her feminist peers (support you can freely go see for yourself on any feminist forum) who owns a theater named after the SCUM (Society for cutting up men) manifesto (which many 2nd wave feminists supported) [/quote]

Oh well if "many" second wave feminists support SCUM then that settles the argument. You win. No arguing with "many". Oh wait, how many? Who are they?

that routinely promotes the killing of men and "Straight Hate Day" as a simple "crank", a word you seem to use to quickly dismiss someone as not dangerous/psychotic which from what I've pointed out, I'm going to have to disagree with, her way of thinking and her actions/what she stands for are very dangerous. I dare say should a man do the equivalent to what she does he'd be imprisoned.

A man would only be imprisoned for doing the same thing if there were reasonable grounds to expect that he would be capable of carrying out and willing to carry out the things that he talks about. Unlike these women, because they are cranks.

That isn't all I pointed out though was it? You seemed to completely ignore the more important issues I pointed out, e.g VAWA, false statistics used to villify men, family courts etc.

There are issues with the absurd statistics on sexual assault (but it's not too big a deal because nobody of real influence is paying any attention to them) and there are more serious issues with family courts and how men a treated therein that need addressing directly, not just alluded to because you think feminism is a dirty word.

The Violence Against Women Act is a strange one. I support its move to act on domestic violence because domestic violence is a serious issue, however I don't think that it should be sex specific.

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg as well I should add, it runs so much deeper than what I've listed I'd have to write several books on the matter quoting the thousands of different sources out there to even begin to cover a good portion of it.

So you just thought it would be a good idea to produce the shit examples of cranks and losers first and save your best material for later?

Nazism (if you exclude the cranks) made great gains in medical science and rocket science which helped put man on the moon among other things.

The people manning the death camps were not "cranks". The people carrying out persecution of Jews, the people informing on their parents, the people making up their armies were not "cranks". Hitler should have been little more than a crank, but he won the crank lottery and managed to persuade a lot of non-cranks to do his bidding.

But of course you're not going to ignore the cranks.

I hope you see how easy it is, you're doing what muslims do when faced with the sobering reality of their religion being hijacked by evil people, you dismiss the evil people as unimportant/not to be taken seriously when they're the complete opposite,

They are cranks while they engage in crank behaviour. Should the behaviour cross into actual real world harm such as that engaged in by Solanos then they would not longer be cranks.

the so called "cranks" of feminism are very important and should be taken seriously because it's their ilk who have done some very damaging things to our society and have had trojan laws/hateful laws approved among other things such as "rape culture" and "the patriarchy" which pollutes young, naive minds and turns people against each other.

The cranks of feminism are unimportant. They don't do anything. They don't achieve anything. Feminism to me is women like Harriet Hall or Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher (whatever she thought of the label). Women who break down barriers instead of the cranks who spend their time bitterly complaining about the people who erected the barriers and claiming that nothing will ever change.

[Russian Crushin]

I agree with what the goal is but not the way it's gone about

[WARQUEZ]

I agree with what the goal is but not the way it's gone about

That's because the goal that you, me, and everyone else has been told is a lie. Feminism isn't the pursue of equality. It's the pursue of dominance.





No joke though, red head would get it. She must suck a mad dick if she can talk like that.

[squealpiggy]

That's because the goal that you, me, and everyone else has been told is a lie. Feminism isn't the pursue of equality. It's the pursue of dominance.





No joke though, red head would get it. She must suck a mad dick if she can talk like that.

I immediately thought about this video as well. They certainly don't make a compelling case when they screech at people in public like that.

But that's third wave college feminism. It's all about the middle class white college girls with daddy issues.

[fishscale]

Harriet Harman has nothing to do with the US constitution. You're making a connection where none exists.

I never said she did nor did I even connect the two, I think you should re-read my post.

Not really. It means that personal problems are political problems, applicable to everything from economic disparity to discrimination against people with disabilities.

That's part of what it means, yes, the other part is as I said, it effectively means what I or anyone else believes are matters of the state. There's no getting around that fact.

That was used in an essay by one feminist.

You need to do more than just gloss over the first result on a google search imo. The actual motto was made popular in an essay by one feminist, yes, but it was being chanted around years before that and had its origins in chattel slavery.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, Second wave feminism was based on a model of systematic oppression similar to chattel slavery, second wave feminists were certifiable lunatics and originally failed to gain the support of many women, it wasn't until (ironically) a feminist they kicked out of their group for not being radical enough opened up a shelter for victims of domestic violence (source: Erin Pizzey) that they gained actual support and that's where the myth of male-on-female violence started. Totalitarianism always starts by infecting the intellectual class and that's why feminism started in universities.

But I'd expect you to lead with your best example and for that you used a crank who runs a bizarro theatre and anonymous trolls on the internet.

A quick example and simply saying "she's a crank" doesn't negate anything about her, she openly spreads hate and promotes the killing of men not only online but in real life, with an audience watching, applauding what she does, she sure has a good sized fan base for such a "crank".

Oh well if "many" second wave feminists support SCUM then that settles the argument. You win. No arguing with "many". Oh wait, how many? Who are they?

Asking for specific numbers isn't relevant to the point and serves no other purpose than to try and accuse me of lying. A quick wiki read should have been enough to satisfy your supposed desire to know "how many" and "who are they?"

Winkiel argues that revolutionary Roxanne Dunbar moved to the U.S. "convinced that a women's revolution had begun",[11][116] forming Cell 16 with a program based on the Manifesto.[117] According to Winkiel, although Solanas was "outraged" at the women's movement's "appropriat[ion]" of the Manifesto,[118] "the shooting [of Warhol] represented the feminist movement's righteous rage against patriarchy"[79] and Dunbar and Ti-Grace Atkinson considered the Manifesto as having initiated a "revolutionary movement",[79] Atkinson (according to Rich) calling Solanas the "'first outstanding champion of women's rights'"[11] and probably (according to Greer) having been "radicalized" by the language of the Manifesto to leave the National Organization for Women (NOW),[47] and (according to Winkiel) women organized in support of Solanas.[119] Solanas was viewed as too mentally ill and too bound up with Warhol, according to Greer, "for her message to come across unperverted."[47] According to Prof. Davis, the Manifesto was a "forerunner"[120] as a "call to arms among pragmatic American feminists"[120] and was "enjoy[ing] ... wide contemporary appeal".[121] According to Winkiel, the Manifesto "was ... influential in the spread of 'womansculture' and lesbian separatism"[122] and is also "credited with beginning the anti****ography movement."[123] Friedan opposed the Manifesto as bad for the feminist movement and NOW.[68][124]

I'd class that as "many" without fear of misconstruing the facts, wouldn't you? There was more support of the manifesto than just outlined there, as well.

A man would only be imprisoned for doing the same thing if there were reasonable grounds to expect that he would be capable of carrying out and willing to carry out the things that he talks about. Unlike these women, because they are cranks.

That's a cop out and you know it. What you just said is "the state would imprison the man if they deemed him a threat" which he blatantly would be, mind you, I'm sure there's a law against promoting the killing of people especially people targeted for their gender.

There are issues with the absurd statistics on sexual assault (but it's not too big a deal because nobody of real influence is paying any attention to them)

You don't see it as a big deal that a large majority of people are brainwashed into believing 1 in 3 women will be abused/assaulted/raped? You don't see how damaging such a belief is to the public people and what a strain such statistics can put on people? Why? Change the roles for a second and say 1 in 3 women will be abused/assaulted/raped by Jews and there'd be absolute uproar but as it's just men being vilified it's "not too big a deal" ? ah.

and there are more serious issues with family courts and how men a treated therein that need addressing directly, not just alluded to because you think feminism is a dirty word.

Feminism is a dirty word, with a very dirty history drenched in the hate of not just men but young boys too. The issue with family courts isn't directly feminism's fault, I will say that but feminism is the reason why those issues in family court AREN'T being addressed or amended, not only do feminists not support such changes they openly oppose them. That's the problem with that issue. No shock though is it? Feminists only ever talk about "equal rights" when it suits them anyways and they always have.

The Violence Against Women Act is a strange one. I support its move to act on domestic violence because domestic violence is a serious issue, however I don't think that it should be sex specific.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...of-men-matter/

This sums up my issues with VAWA.

So you just thought it would be a good idea to produce the shit examples of cranks and losers first and save your best material for later?

I didn't think it'd be a good idea, I lack motivation though, the real issues and problems are built up by more than one individual and require a lot of source work/references etc.

The people manning the death camps were not "cranks". The people carrying out persecution of Jews, the people informing on their parents, the people making up their armies were not "cranks". Hitler should have been little more than a crank, but he won the crank lottery and managed to persuade a lot of non-cranks to do his bidding.

Which is what these "radical" feminists do with politicians.

They are cranks while they engage in crank behaviour. Should the behaviour cross into actual real world harm such as that engaged in by Solanos then they would not longer be cranks.

I think actively promoting the hatred/killing of half the population based on gender should be considered more than just a "crank" especially when that person has an audience/people that support her.

The cranks of feminism are unimportant. They don't do anything. They don't achieve anything. Feminism to me is women like Harriet Hall or Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher (whatever she thought of the label). Women who break down barriers instead of the cranks who spend their time bitterly complaining about the people who erected the barriers and claiming that nothing will ever change.

That's where we fundamentally disagree and where the problem arises then, I believe (and can site sources if requested) the cranks of feminism do get things done, very bad things that harm our society and they do it under the banner of "feminism" they hide behind it because feminism is associated with "equality" but if the actions of those people are the opposite of equality, what then? Feminism isn't a fight for equality and it hasn't been since 2nd wave feminism. It IS a hate group or at the very least, it's a safe ground for hateful people to hide away in and subtly promote their hatred.

But that's third wave college feminism. It's all about the middle class white college girls with daddy issues.

Never heard of Adria Richards? The middle-class "ethnic" college girls are even worse they get a double whammy of race baiting and gender hatred usually accompanied with a side serving of "straight hate".