Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,644
I am a lowbrie white guy 
#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
Man of Honour
The logical conclusion of all this is sexual apartheid. I think that establishing sexual apartheid is the goal of the people driving it, based on the fact that they are being bloody foolish if that isn't their goal. They certainly want to seperate men and women more, since creating as much seperation between people of different sexes as possible is required for feminism to gain more power or even just continue existing in the long term. Biological group identity ideologies require seperation on the basis of whatever biological trait they think defines people because if people commonly interact as equals they'll be far less inclined to believe in biological group identity and in The Other being the cause of all problems.
Man of Honour
Depends how successful feminists are. If they're successful enough, we'll go to an attempt at a final solution to the male problem. It's the only logical conclusion to the belief that all men are the cause of all problems.
If anyone thinks that's ridiculous, they could try replacing "men/male" with "Jews/Jewish" regarding power and "black" regarding violence. Exactly the same thoughts, exactly the same beliefs, exactly the same words. Just targetted at a different biological group identity. The only important difference is the amount of power. If believers in any particular variation of that ideology have enough power, they act in accordance with their belief.
They don't have enough power to go as far as they'd like. Yet. The people you refer to definitely are feminists - they advocate for female people and that's what feminism is. Whether or not they're liberals depends on to what extent you think they have corrupted the word "liberal". I think they've succeeded enough to make the word unrecoverable, i.e. that the meaning of the word has been irreversibly changed and that people who would have been called liberals in the past should abandon the word because by continuing to use it they are only helping the new "liberals" who have corrupted the word.
True, but I think those people are doing more harm than good to their own ideology by continuing to identify themselves with a word that has been corrupted so thoroughly that it's very close to meaning the opposite of what it used to mean. The new liberalism is extremely authoritarian, utterly intolerant and built entirely from irrational prejudices. By the old definition of "liberal", the new liberalism is about as illiberal as an ideology can be.
It hasn't been co-opted. It's always been the same way. It is what it is - advocacy for the "right" sex. That's inherently sexist on multiple levels and an inherently extreme position. How can believing that a person's sex is their identity and that only the "right" sex is worthy of consideration not be an inherently extreme position?
What's changed isn't feminism. It's the people you refer to realising that feminism isn't what they were conditioned to believe it is. It never was. It's them who have changed, not feminism.
Last edited:
Well the difference there is that jews were/are a minority. Men will normally be ~50% of the population, not a minority.
Also feminists aren't 100% of women. So feminists as a % of the whole population will be what, 30%? Less? I would suggest any democratic government would find it hard to run on a feminist manifesto of killing all the blokes
I don't think we should really be worrying about male extermination, here. There are more ... immediate issues at hand, like the very real problem of an ever-broadening definition of "harassment".
Going back to my earlier post, one thing I forgot to mention from the "all women are victims" search... The number of people saying "all women are victims of male objectification."
Again the use of the word "victim". But here, it simply means "a man has looked at a women and decided she's hot". Can women honestly say they don't look at men that way?
So why aren't we using the language of "victimisation" when women admire men? Heck we've all heard the sorts of things women say to each other about men they fancy.
Also feminists aren't 100% of women. So feminists as a % of the whole population will be what, 30%? Less? I would suggest any democratic government would find it hard to run on a feminist manifesto of killing all the blokes
I don't think we should really be worrying about male extermination, here. There are more ... immediate issues at hand, like the very real problem of an ever-broadening definition of "harassment".
Going back to my earlier post, one thing I forgot to mention from the "all women are victims" search... The number of people saying "all women are victims of male objectification."
Again the use of the word "victim". But here, it simply means "a man has looked at a women and decided she's hot". Can women honestly say they don't look at men that way?
So why aren't we using the language of "victimisation" when women admire men? Heck we've all heard the sorts of things women say to each other about men they fancy.
Man of Honour
That's a difference, but not an important one. Where is the relevance of it? In any case, the usual plan is to reduce the number of "males" first, to a more manageable level.
And yes, the plans already exist. Some feminists are openly in favour of a final solution already.
Also true and also irrelevant. Nazis weren't 100% of Germans. Nowhere near 100% of Germans. That didn't stop them.
So feminists as a % of the whole population will be what, 30%? Less? I would suggest any democratic government would find it hard to run on a feminist manifesto of killing all the blokes
The Nazis were elected in a democracy. Just 10 years earlier hardly anyone in Germany would have thought it possible that could happen, i.e. they would have said the same as you.
The ideas that followers of a group identity ideology can only gain enough power if 100% of the people they claim to represent support them and that only a minority can be oppressed are just plain wrong.
Not yet, no. The feminists who want it don't yet have anywhere near enough power to even make an attempt at it. Not unless they can create a perfectly efficient biological warfare agent, which is wildly implausible at the moment. Theoretically possible, but nowhere near plausible. Maybe it will be at some point in the future with more advanced knowledge and technolgy, but not now.
I didn't say it was a current threat. I said it was the logical conclusion of the ideology and that the more immediate issue you refer to....
makes a great deal of sense as a step towards that logical conclusion for the reasons I stated before: "Biological group identity ideologies require seperation on the basis of whatever biological trait they think defines people because if people commonly interact as equals they'll be far less inclined to believe in biological group identity and in The Other being the cause of all problems."
People who believe in biological group identity and the irrational prejudices that inevitably follow that belief always think that the same thing is different depending on which group identity is doing it. So, for example, whitists see nothing wrong in punishing "black" people for doing things they think are fine when "white" people do them. Feminists see nothing wrong in punishing men for doing things they think are fine when women do them. And so on. Same ideology of group identity, different group identities. Believers in those blatant double-standards will come up with some way of rationalising them. They always do. It usually involves claiming that the group they're attacking is more powerful, inherently inferior and to blame for everything, therefore it's a good thing to attack them.
Man of Honour
I can't really argue with any of that. I do personally feel it has been co-opted, as do the people I mentioned in my post, but your point is fair regarding both the original meaning being different to the one assumed by myself and others and your other point regarding 'liberalism' changing in meaning is probably accurate too. Depressing times.
Soldato
As a previous owner of a MGBGT, I found it strange that MGTOW didn't stand for what I thought it stand for.
Absolutely. I've known this since about 10 years ago and I'm sure I've mentioned it on this forum at least 5 years ago.
Divide and conquer is the game, and men and women are the biggest problem for the game players because there is tendency for natural attraction between these two. I mean they have sex propaganda material telling young women that if they ever show off their feathers to another male, even on the internet, that it's the same as actually getting pinned down and physically raped.
Then they teach the young woman that because she has showed off her body to a male, that she has to call a confidential number and talk to a psychologist because "you been raped".
Then, because a mentally unstable society is in the interests of the psychologist, he will plant all sorts of negative seeds in the woman's head, like "OMG the dude will get together with his buddies and they will all be looking at your ugly boobs, you must feel bad about this, I want you to live the rest of your worrying about the risk of you getting blackmailed, and if anybody calls you beautiful in the future, it's sexual harassment and he's a rapist" etc. etc.
Yep people like this are abundant, There's been a case on these forums where a bloke said he'd be happier if his kids were raped by a British chap than an immigrant. And there's been another case where a chap said that if a black person and white person commit the same crime that the black person should get harsher penalty because he's black. I cant even believe such blatant and disgusting self-confessed racists are still allowed to post on these forums without hindrance tbh. Yet I've been told I must stop editing my posts, because I try to promote peace and harmony lol.
Man of Honour
Uhhhh thats radfem you're talking about, nothing to do with mainstream or intersectional feminism.
Man of Honour
That's a predictable attempt at dismissing criticism when you can't answer that criticism. It's also complete rubbish, but that doesn't stop it having some political use.
If I intend to talk about any specific strain of feminism, I do so. If I intend to talk about feminism in general, i.e. all of it, I do so. Even though different strains of feminism can vary wildly and often oppose each other on some details, there are things that all strains have in common and that's what defines what feminism is in general. It's like flu - there are numerous strains and some are far worse than others, but they're all the same type of virus. If a virus is sufficiently different, it's not a flu virus. There has to be a core relevant commonality in order for things to be the same type of thing.
Oh crap I almost forgot about the most utterly deplorable piece of sex propaganda mind control attempt I've ever come across.
There are certain forces out there who are trying to get young women to believe that if they ever see a man yawning, that the yawning man is stalking them. So basically if there are 3 women walking down a road, and a man yawns, then all 3 women are victims of stalking. I ****ing kid you not.
There are certain forces out there who are trying to get young women to believe that if they ever see a man yawning, that the yawning man is stalking them. So basically if there are 3 women walking down a road, and a man yawns, then all 3 women are victims of stalking. I ****ing kid you not.
Associate
The share of vote the Nazis achieved was 33.1% before they set about a programme of violence and terror which still only garnered them 43.9% in the last vote. While still in a democracy the Nazis were in a coalition government.
Lol! You read some crazy stuff.
Man of Honour
I wouldn't fault you for feeling that it has been co-opted recently enough for you to feel that way. We all perceive reality through our own minds and we can't really do anything else outside of things that can be covered by science. Not always even then, really, since there are things that can be proven to be true that people find difficult to truly reconcile with their own perception, their own feelings about how the universe is. Some things that even experts in the field, people who really understand the subject, find weird.
For more subjective things, like political ideologies, it's a far stronger thing. So it can easily feel right, even when framed in terms of logic:
Premise: My views have not changed.
Premise: I used to support X and now I don't.
Conclusion: X has changed.
That's far more comfortable than thinking "I was misled and wrong about X for years". That one took me a while to acknowledge, even after I'd seen the evidence.
You can look back 100 years or more and find people in the same situation as the people you mentioned, saying the same thing about feminism being changed. Sometimes in detail. For example, the book "Feminism Divided", which was written in the 1920s, refers to the "old feminism" that was about equality and the "new feminism" that was about women only and not about equality and which was/had taken over and changed feminism. The author was making the same mistake the people you mention are making and which many people have made and continue to make. Her "old feminism" never existed. It was a construct in her own mind, a misunderstanding about what feminism is. It was her being misled and wrong. Her "new feminism" was what feminism always had been - what was new was that she had realised it existed. She still thought her fictional "old feminism" existed, though.
You can see the same thing over and over again throughout the years. I've spoken with a fair few self-identified feminists, generally older, who look at feminism and think "that's not how it's supposed to be, that's not how it was". But it is how it was supposed to be and it is how it was. It's not feminism that's changed. Not in that way.
The liberalism thing is depressing. I like what liberalism used to be and now it's ruined. I like the concepts of tolerance, freedom, equality of treatment, acceptance of diversity...and there's another word that has been infected and corrupted by this pernicious ideology. It used to mean accepting, even welcoming, differences. Now it means a belief in biological group identity (i.e. "they're all the same", the mantra of bigots and the opposite of accepting differences), preferential treatment for "right" group identities and enforced sameness of word and deed and, to the greatest extent possible, thought. This feminist, "liberal", "diverse" ideology functions in the same way as a virus - infecting a cell and corrupting it into a factory to produce more of the virus while using it to hide from the host's immune system by presenting a facade of being the very thing it's destroying.
I'm what used to be called liberal. I'm also quite socialist. I'm quite extreme when it comes to equality of treatment, especially regarding sexism. I would, for example, desgregate everywhere. Toilets, changing rooms, absolutely everywhere. I'd also like to see the whole idea of gender thrown in the bin because it creates and supports sexism. Not binning sex (that's real) but binning gender (that's mostly wholly fake and the remaining parts are trends that should never be applied to anyone). I'm also pretty extreme regarding racial equality - I think that race doesn't exist at all, that it's a completely fake idea that no-one should believe in because it's simply not a real thing. I think that the traditional view of human sexual orientation as two discrete groups (homosexual and heterosexual) is objectively wrong too - it's actually a spectrum, so the division into discrete groups is false. Unsurprisingly, I think that it's not a sound basis on which to base law, social custom or anything else.
I'm finding it bizarre that I now find more common ground with the political right than with the political left. There's more of the above on the right than on the left now. That's weird.
Man of Honour
Which they controlled (since they had more seats than any other party) and was enough for them (since they succeeded in getting complete ruling power). The main point stands - it isn't necessary to have majority support to get ruling power, even when starting in a democracy and using that democracy to get enough power to take complete ruling power.
Associate
Am I the only one who had Kevin spacey pegged for a (gay, not that there's anything wrong with that unless you get rapey about it) child raping psycho from the get-go?
Oh and #MeToo because I was sexually harassed by this gay guy in high school relentlessly on a daily basis despite me telling him that I was straight and not interested at every opportunity.
Oh and #MeToo because I was sexually harassed by this gay guy in high school relentlessly on a daily basis despite me telling him that I was straight and not interested at every opportunity.
Soldato
Three mates and I went out round a few locals a few months back and befriended a group of girls all out having a fun and rowdy night. One of them, who turned out to be married, was so hammered by the end of the night she was thrusting herself upon each and everyone of us essentially demanding that she be taken back to ours and be seen to. She was jamming her hands down our trousers, grabbing junk, tongues into mouths and for such a petite person she was bloody forceful. It was actually as if she had turned feral, it was quite disturbing. The best I could do was hold her arms to restrain her, anything more physical would have not only have been out of order but also attracted the wrong attention from others.
Since she was in such a state, she inevitably ended up staggering out in the street, dropping to all fours and throwing up all over herself. Next she was just verbally abusing everyone and telling them to leave her where she lay, in her own sick. I ended up throwing her over my shoulder and carrying her to her friends nearby house where we called her husband to come pick her up! She was kicking and screaming most of that way so it did look like I was abducting her or something
had a few random blokes come to us quite concerned, until I explained that my intentions.
The next morning back at mine, all the guys and I remarked on a few points, like what if that was a guy thrusting his hands down loads of women's pants and demanding sex. Or if we were horrible and just took her up on the offer (and were inevitably accused of rape there after). Or if we had just left her face down in the street and God knows what might have happened to her by some heinous person(s) out that night. Her friends weren't much use either, looking back.
These kind of occurrences aren't rare though, we've all seen and experienced them regularly haven't we? I guess to a degree though, the gravity and impact of a woman making unwanted sexual advances just isn't the same as a man doing it. The drunk married lass in the end couldn't completely force herself upon us. It's a difficult one really.
Since she was in such a state, she inevitably ended up staggering out in the street, dropping to all fours and throwing up all over herself. Next she was just verbally abusing everyone and telling them to leave her where she lay, in her own sick. I ended up throwing her over my shoulder and carrying her to her friends nearby house where we called her husband to come pick her up! She was kicking and screaming most of that way so it did look like I was abducting her or something
had a few random blokes come to us quite concerned, until I explained that my intentions. The next morning back at mine, all the guys and I remarked on a few points, like what if that was a guy thrusting his hands down loads of women's pants and demanding sex. Or if we were horrible and just took her up on the offer (and were inevitably accused of rape there after). Or if we had just left her face down in the street and God knows what might have happened to her by some heinous person(s) out that night. Her friends weren't much use either, looking back.
These kind of occurrences aren't rare though, we've all seen and experienced them regularly haven't we? I guess to a degree though, the gravity and impact of a woman making unwanted sexual advances just isn't the same as a man doing it. The drunk married lass in the end couldn't completely force herself upon us. It's a difficult one really.
Associate
Three mates and I went out round a few locals a few months back and befriended a group of girls all out having a fun and rowdy night. One of them, who turned out to be married, was so hammered by the end of the night she was thrusting herself upon each and everyone of us essentially demanding that she be taken back to ours and be seen to. She was jamming her hands down our trousers, grabbing junk, tongues into mouths and for such a petite person she was bloody forceful. It was actually as if she had turned feral, it was quite disturbing. The best I could do was hold her arms to restrain her, anything more physical would have not only have been out of order but also attracted the wrong attention from others.
Since she was in such a state, she inevitably ended up staggering out in the street, dropping to all fours and throwing up all over herself. Next she was just verbally abusing everyone and telling them to leave her where she lay, in her own sick. I ended up throwing her over my shoulder and carrying her to her friends nearby house where we called her husband to come pick her up! She was kicking and screaming most of that way so it did look like I was abducting her or something
The next morning back at mine, all the guys and I remarked on a few points, like what if that was a guy thrusting his hands down loads of women's pants and demanding sex. Or if we were horrible and just took her up on the offer (and were inevitably accused of rape there after). Or if we had just left her face down in the street and God knows what might have happened to her by some heinous person(s) out that night. Her friends weren't much use either, looking back.
These kind of occurrences aren't rare though, we've all seen and experienced them regularly haven't we? I guess to a degree though, the gravity and impact of a woman making unwanted sexual advances just isn't the same as a man doing it. The drunk married lass in the end couldn't completely force herself upon us. It's a difficult one really.
I think the difference is that it would have been a lot harder for her to rape you than it would have been for you to rape her. Unless she had some sort of falic (I don't know how to spell that word) instrument in her possession and could restrain you long enough to penetrate your erm "exit" with it. Not likely. Men are stronger and we do the screwing rather than getting screwed (though there are different strokes for different folks) so society looks at forceful sexual behaviour with more of a frowny face when it is perpetrated by the male gender. We've all been drunk as and had the inkling of "I should grab every boob in the room" but few follow through because we know we'll have some 'splaining to do to the police.
Also I think that for the most part, unless the woman is hideous, men don't mind this sort of thing as much as women do. If a random woman at a night club started grabbing at my junk I'd think more along the lines of "I must be hot as hell" than "My god I've been violated"...
Soldato
@RoboCod none of that could have happened because all women are fragile little flowers who wince at the mere gaze of a male. If you spent more time on Facebook & Twitter and less time around actual women, you would know this.