I have a question for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.

^^^Don't mind Boo, jrjones. He's just trying to stir the pot. He's actually fairly harmless.

The problem is that the SJW feminists here keep calling me a "bigot" without explaining why. Just because I don't agree with SJW feminists doesn't mean I don't think women don't deserve a voice. If these people met my older brother, it would vaporize their perception about me. I also live in the Bible Belt which cancels out "white male heterosexual privelege" in my case because I am not an iron pumping alpha jock. I get labeled as being "priveleged" without actually receiving any of those supposed "priveleges".

He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.

I don't disagree with you. I rarely post here for a reason.

My advice:

If your goal is to find a women to date, I would suggest looking elsewhere......basically anywhere but wrongplanet...... I was essentially able to figure out how to successfully date by doing the exact opposite of the advice usually given on this forum.

When the guys here ignore (or react with clear hostility) to the advice of women aspies or successful aspie daters in favor of embracing the proven terrible (low self-esteem reinforcing) advice of equally unsuccessful people, they are mostly just harming themselves in the end.

Most of the people I recognize that still post here regularly appear to be in the same position they were when I registered here 5 years ago (back when I was utterly clueless about dating.) Most still can't even get out the gate. That's because this forum it is not in any way a place people go for actual dating advice. It's a pity-party/echo-chamber.

Deep down, I believe most of these guys simply don't know any better. I would recommend trying to shift your attitude to one of pity rather than hostility as I think you'd have a higher chance of getting through to them that way (as remote as that may be.) Calling someone a bigot, although justified for certain posters, is the easiest way to get someone to not listen to you.

Truthfully, I actually like Boo and find him to be pretty funny and smart about certain things, but if someone could show me a single person who has benefited romantically from any of his dating advice, I would eat my own hat. Taking a clown seriously is a mistake.

Basically it's like this:

One of the pretenses to the formation of the U.S. was no taxation without representation. The colonists were not represented but fellow colonists but by politicians in Britain, who they did not feel could adequately represent them, as they did not live in the colonies and did not understand the colonists needs and plights.

Women faced a similar problem, and still do in my respects. Before women's suffrage, we did not have adequate representation and those who were making decisions on our behalf did so without the understanding of our needs or problems. While women today have the right to vote (as we should), we still do not have adequate representation in government for some instances.

For example...



The men above are discussing a health care bill, one of the points under discussion was whether the new bill should mandate that health insurance plans provide essential benefits, including maternity services.

These men will never have to be pregnant and are not really qualified to make policies concerning women's health issues based on that fact and the lack of knowledge of women's health problems that stem from the fact that they are not primarily applicable to them or something they have ever or would ever experience first hand.

Already women are suffering from mandates which allow employers to refrain from offering health insurance policies that exclude contraception, because "birth control" pills are actually hormone pills that are not just used to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but to treat a myriad of often painful, inconvenient, and sometimes infertility causing women's health problems that women often face. In fact 50% of women who take birth control pills do so to treat these medical conditions and not to prevent pregnancy.

To add to their woes, health insurance plans, regardless of whether or not they cover birth control pills, don't cover compounded medications. This is important to know because progesterone and estrogen don't come in a commercial form outside of birth control pills, and so have to be compounded if for some reason she can't take the form offered in the birth control pills. For example, maybe she can't tolerate the synthetic hormones, and needs natural hormones, or maybe she needs the progesterone but must avoid the estrogen. These policies leave women having to pay out of pocket or opt for invasive, expensive surgical procedures such as hysterectomies, because that's the only thing covered by the insurance that will treat her condition.

All of this is a result of men, with their lack of insight into female problems, making policies that pertain to women.

Also, your assertion that only those who serve in the military should be able to vote assumes a country that 1. Either support a large military. 2. Creates a situation where it's impossible for some people to vote, despite the fact that they may be more than qualified to make decisions on the issues on the ballot. 3. Would create a situation where significant swaths of the population are not represented, causing discontent, unrest, and instability, and 4. Assumes that the country even has a need for a large military, when ideally, the natural state of country should be at peace, and thus have small military. 5. Overlooks the valuable contributions and sacrifices of civilian volunteers and contractors (the military likes these people because they don't have to give them veterans benefits).

As for paying taxes, just about everyone does. Those who don't pay income tax pay sales tax, sometimes gas tax, property tax, utility tax, and so on.

Very ironically, it was actually the lack of women in government that lead to a strange situation in Victorian England. It started when a well educated woman sought to divorce her violent husband who had kicked her out of the house and was keeping her from their children. She was a wealthy woman with an income on account of inheriting her family's holdings, but had no access to that money as any money a married woman had, was legally the property of her husband. She was unable to obtain a divorce as only men initiate them, and he refused to divorce her, and without access to funds for a lawyer, she took it upon herself to teach herself the law.

She discovered two interesting things.
1. Married women had no legal personhood in England. This was an unintentional result of only men having a say in making policies.

2. Because she had no legal personhood, she could not only not own property or have her own money, but she could also not be responsible for any debt she incurred. This is like having a credit card but not being responsible for the bill.

So what did she do?

She ran up a bunch of debt in her husband's name. Keep in mind, this was a time when there were no social safety nets except poor houses and people still got thrown into debtor's prison.

Her ploy worked. Her husband finally divorced her, and her actions called to the attention to parliament the fact that, in the course of their all male law making from their all male perspectives of life, even though they all had mothers, wives, and probably sisters and aunts, they forgot to ensure that married women had legal person hood.

When people aren't allowed to represent themselves, they and their interests are overlooked.

I know that it would have been impossible to study as a male teenager if there were girls in bikini's about in school.

Saying girls cannot wear bikini's to school is likely widely agreed upon.

I know that it would have been impossible to study as a male teenager if there were girls in bikini's about in school.

Saying girls cannot wear bikini's to school is likely widely agreed upon.

He's fairly harmless to me, but he and his boot-lickers create a toxic atmosphere in L&D. I can't count the number of female feminists who have left because of him. That crew may not want to date a feminist, but I do. By harming those women to the point where they leave, he hurts my chances.