I hate feminazis

Post Reply New Topic

What your pointing out is how feminists use false dichotomies. This is common tactic among ideologists, particularly the radical sort.

I'm always willing to sacrifice "popularity" for honesty. No point in living if you don't have standards.



1. Yes, it is. Have you not seen the KillAllMen hashtag, or the covering up of the rape crisis in Cologne because of the far left wanting to protect racial identity? Have you heard that Richard Dawkins had an invitation revoked to speak at a skeptics conference because of a parody video that he retweeted starring a caricature of one rather despicable red haired individual? Do you think that's OK? How about that one woman claiming that you can't be racist or sexist if you are either, 1. not white, 2. a woman, respectively. Yet I hear Feminists claim they stand for men's rights as well as women's. So why would they picket MRA conferences? It is not "coming from the right place". I don't say that as somebody with a tenuous grasp on the subject, I say that as somebody who has been following this debacle for the past three or four years, continuously and persistently.

2. Irrelevant. We don't live in the past anymore. Recognition of prior struggles is no longer meaningful, as it does not reflect modern day society. Propagating such a thing is what leads to white guilt. Hell, kids in some schools are actually being taught white guilt. Do you not see that as a problem? It very much echoes the whole fundamentalist Christian perspective of, "You are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and are thus born with original sin". You see, it really does look like a cult when you make these comparisons. People are stuck in the past, there are black supremacists still droning on about the colonisation that happened 200 years ago. Excuse me, I wasn't the one that enslaved minorities. I wasn't even alive in the '80's, never mind the 1800's.

3. I didn't miss that point at all. In fact, that's exactly what my post was addressing. Feminism has become some bizarre cult and people are now shifting off to identify as egalitarian, because they no longer want to be lumped in together with these supremacists. Nobody wants to be seen as them anymore, because they're despicable, and because they hide beneath a veil that preaches "equality", people are duped into believing it to be so.


As you say, you associate with socialism. I don't think you're purposely misunderstanding, and I too fully appreciate and understand what the Suffragettes achieved way back when. I've even seen reasonable and perfectly adequate individuals who associate with Feminism. Perhaps seven or so years ago, I would have done the same. No longer, though. Just look at what it's become; "safe spaces" in universities, constantly catering to students as though they're children, double standards, ignorance, abuse, and self loathing from any straight white male that happens to also get caught in the trap. That's not something I want to be a part of, nor anybody else who can really see what's going on.

You are very young to be so cynical. You can't, at 19 years old, say you understand history but at the same time say that the history of racism and sexism in the west doesn't have an effect anymore, like you're living in a "post-racial" America. 10 years from now you are going to look back on comments like you made above and cringe at your combination of ignorance and your certainty in your ignorance and lack of life experience. You have some growing to do, young man.

There are 19 year olds that know their history better than some 70 year olds. Sure age has some experience, but it is a limited experience if they had no interest in studying history, or were not educated.

Also there can be a fair bit of historical revisionism.

How broad is your historical knowledge?

Btw the word cynic isn't wholly negative. The point of being a cynic is not to accept what you are told at face value, so everyone should be one.

1. I've dabbled at the fringes of this sort of thinking/philosophy. I know the nuances of what goes on, nuances that are often lost on those who don't. I'm a white, straight male. I don't feel in the slightest attacked by these currents of thought or protest that come from people who aren't white, or straight, or male. Indeed, the people who pose a serious threat to me and those I care about are largely male, white, and straight.

MRAs have little to offer men. Again, it is a reactionary movement whose aim is to counter and stop feminism. It equates men's rights with the destruction of feminism.

2. It is very much relevant. Currents of present thought and concept in society can be traced back quite a while. This is why history and philosophy are necessary. To look at what we're thinking and why we're thinking it, and to see how what/why/how we're thinking is causing us problems.

3. If you are right, I wouldn't worry. Empty vessels make a lot of noise but ultimately little impact.

It is occasionally proposed that there should be all-women shortlists when it comes to selection for MPs. The Labour Party have put this into practice.

The outcry is that 'it should be about the right person for the job!'. Now, this reaction so much disingenous horses**t, up there with the rending of garments occasionally found when the news reports how girls are now academically ahead of boys.

It is disingenous horses**t because those voicing these sudden concerns for egalitarianism would never trouble to raise their voices when matters ran the other way - indeed, would describe such concerns as you do the 'radical feminists'. All the years there were all-male shortlists, well, that's just how things were. All the years a girls education was to raise her to be a housewife or secretary - well, that's just how things are.

Time and again, any protest now thought just and necessary has been labelled 'radical'. Because that's the point of protest. And eventually the 'radical' became 'common sense', and a line was drawn that said 'this far, and no further'. And then there were more 'radical' protests that became 'common sense', and a new line was drawn saying 'this far, and no further'. And so on and so on.

Broad enough to know that in North America racism and sexism are still part of our culture and those biases are still present in many people's thinking, though some of our laws have changed (for example giving voting rights to women and PoC). We are no where near a "post-racial" anything, and anyone who watches the news lately and is aware of all the unarmed PoC recently being shot and killed by the police* would know that. To say those prejudices are no longer present or harmful is ignorant at best, willfully obtuse at worst.

*ETA: Don't forget that cop Daniel Holtzclaw, who was just sentenced to several hundred years worth of prison time for intentionally targeting dozens of women of colour to rape/assault because he knew they were more vulnerable targets and would be less likely to be believed if they came forward about being attacked--even his defense in court was predicated on the fact that some of the women had records or had small amounts of drugs on them when he attacked them and so were "unreliable witnesses". Abuse of power based on race and sex still exists in America in a big way.

I don't see how my age has any prevalent bearing regarding the means of my countering the far left's constant beating of a dead horse with these altered and tilted "truths". Are you aware that more black people commit crimes? Are you aware that black on white racially motivated crime is more common than white on black? And where, exactly, is there still evident societal racism? It seems like you're talking out of your behind. That, or you've been blindsided by the media. Either way is very plausible.

Have you thought at all about what might be the causes of these things--like say, a pattern of hundreds of years of systemic oppression of one race by another? Do you understand that social patterns don't pop up out of nowhere, that there are influences from the past that still ripple into the present? Do you understand that time is linear and more recent things follow things that happened even longer ago, and that things farther back can effect things in the present? How basic do I need to get with my explanation?

See my previous answer to 0_equals_true about cops shooting unarmed black people and targeting black women for sexual assault. As to your comment about me "talking out my behind" or whatever you said: try to remain civil if you can, and if you can't then please leave the conversation. Adults are talking now.

1. Your point has no bearing. Just because you don't feel anything, doesn't mean nobody else does. Yet we're expected to just sit back and tolerate it. Is that what you want? I guess so. Have fun in actually living in 1984, then.

Your second point is simply ignorant. I'm pretty sure the conference was tackling male suicide rates, yet Feminists were there to slander and label them rape apologists. No, you're right, they sound like stand up gals to me.


2. No. Everybody is taught not to harm, not to be racist, not to be sexist, not to be violent or slanderous or insulting. The past has absolutely no relevance anymore. I'm yet to have somebody show me how it does.


3. I worry to the bitter end. There's no point accepting the truth of the matter, how things are in the modern day, when all of it is just smoke and mirrors. I don't want to accept a world like that because it's dishonest.

As for the whole thing about women being housewives, you should be accustomed to the fact (if you were not incessantly fed the lies from liberal media) that most women are happy to stay at home and take care of a family. That's a controversial suggestion, but rooted primarily in truth. Nobody is forcing women to stay at home anymore, and there is literally no gender discrimination in first world nations, hardly even in second world nations. Not supported by society, anyway. Not as something that wouldn't be a crime.

black people are convicted of more crimes, proportionally, than white people; I'm dubious as to how much of that is due to them actually 'committing more crimes.'

I have been following the situation closely.

The US has a real problem with its whole approach to policing I have talked about before in detail.
viewtopic.php?t=284205
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopi ... 8&start=75
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopi ... 5#p6724497

UK has it problems to but there is more emphasis on deescalation in general, in terms of training at least.

Not only are there is issues with shooting ethic minorities, there is far too many police shootings in general. Like an unarmed teenager who was shot by a cop through the passenger window, just visiting a drive-through.

The cop is alleging the car was driving at him. But you can't shoot through a side window if the car is driving directly towards you. Also it was at a drive through. The kid wasn't there to commit a crime. Even if the cop car is side swiped killing the guy would cause loss of control of the vehicle anyway. There is a lack of imagination and training of how to act.

The police aren't releasing the dash cam footage yet, hopefully they will get footage form the drive through. There is also a culture in the polices force to batten down the hatches when incident like this happen, and be overly defensive about the officer.. At least in the UK they are automatically handed to the IPC. I'm not sure if this is to do with Police Unions or the police commissioners.

If you sign up to be a police officer you accept you will be under some risk. However I think they hiring the wrong people for the wrong reasons, with the wrong training.

Being a police officer requires a lot of patience and understanding of the law.

I think in the US police are too focused on immediate compliance, and aren't trained in understanding that the public have a right to question certain thing and ask questions, such as the nature of policing that going "nuclear" isn't usual the first port of call.

Also trust is the police is central to law enforcement. That is why I have talked a lot about Peelian Principles.

'Historical injustices and prejudices no longer relevant, says young white man living in Western country' is an Onion headline in waiting, if ever I saw one.

Probably because you still fail to recognise the fact that history is no longer relevant. We live in the now. If somebody kills a black guy, it doesn't mean they killed him because he's black, or because of the colonisation. Please, join us in the 21st century once it suits your fancy. Or, alternatively, you could point out these ramifications of the past that you keep yammering on about. Either way is good.

(Emphasis added by me.)

Yes, all of what you say to do with policing I agree with, but especially that last statement about being able to trust law enforcement and how crucial that is: I think if I were a black person living in pretty much any American city right now I would have a LOT of trouble trusting my local law enforcement officers not to harm me or otherwise abuse their power over me, and that is something extremely important that I think all Americans need to think very deeply about, about why it is that so many African Americans very understandably feel that way.

Well? There is a strong correlation with misandry and Radical feminism, take https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12 ... s-rape-ok/ for example!