First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity
14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Magical-Soul wrote:
Well, let the discussion and hypoagency commence in the comments.


I had to search the web for ten minutes to find "Hypoagency".

(Goin' to town and letting the ol' "red pills", nudge-nudge-wink-wink, slip now that PV's been banned, huh?)
451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
Originally, when I heard about feminism, I was like "Men and Women being treated equally? I agree with that!"

I knew that there were and personally felt that there were negative expectations associated with being either male or female. I remember times when people would treat me poorly in order to treat someone else better because they were a girl. And I I remember times where someone else would get treated poorly in order to treat me better because I am a boy. I thought that people should not be treated better or worse because of their gender, but based on their personal merits. Since this seemed to be the way feminism was defined, I thought I was a feminist.

But then I saw how feminism was used...

People only (or at least mostly) seem to use feminism to heighten the overall status of females in society by means of lessening the overall status of males in society:

-Things like lowering requirements for jobs for women but not men is not a good or fair thing (like female firefighters having to be able to carry less weight than male firefighters for a minimum requirement).

-Having the idea that women hitting men is okay but men hitting women is not okay is stupid (no one should hit anyone except in direct retaliation of being hit or in self defense - the aggressor is the bad one, regardless of gender).

-The way divorces are handled with child custody and child support payments is currently not fair for men.


tldr - Feminism is good as an idea, but in practice it isn't.
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
And the award for most brainwashed woman who thinks she's only here to create babies goes to...
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/12/15
Alright, let's go through this one at a time, Honey Badger style!.... Wait, Honey Badgers don't do that.

Well, Magical-Soul style works too, let's get started.


1. Primary aggressor laws exist because men are, indeed, much more likely to commit certain aggressive crimes. The intent of the laws is not to make men victims but to allow quick action when there isn't time for deliberation. Violent crimes, by and large, ARE committed by men. I certainly wouldn't want the police to take their sweet time when deciding who to arrest first. Most of the time, men will be aggressors. That's just how men are built. If you need to choose between a red candy container and a blue candy container, knowing that the red container is much more likely to be empty than the blue container, you're probably going to choose the blue container. It's not that you chose the blue container because you believe the red one will never contain anything. It's that the blue container is more likely to be the correct choice. Even though you recognize that there's a possibility that the blue container may be empty, it only makes sense to choose the blue container if the odds are better. You have to accept that there will still be a chance for failure even though you are increasing the likelihood of success.


There are 3 things you need to address here, but since I'm the Honey Badger, I will do the heavy lifting for you.

1. Would be the example of men needing this because they are more likely to commit crimes.

2. Statistics that men are "much more likely" to do these crimes

3. If this law exists because men are likely to do it, wouldn't women need get laws because they are more likely to do other things?

The last point is to drive home the fact that the likeliness of which gender does a certain crime does not matter, other wise women would be primary aggressors against children, since they are the majority of child killers. But we know no bias against women exist for any crime, she actually get light slaps. Now on to the remove the first two from the equation.

Let's examine the first thing you said, and we are talking about partner violence and primary aggressor laws.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

To make things easier, you can click the link for the full article and links to the study, but I'll quote the important bits since I'm typically the only one to read links posted, xD


"It's a complex argument but we do get more women aggressing against male partners than men against female partners," said Dr George. "The view is that women are acting in self-defence but that is not true - 50 per cent of those who initiate aggression are women. This sends a dangerous message to men because we are saying they are not going to get any legal redress so their option instead is to hit back."



The study, which challenges the long-standing view that women are overwhelmingly the victims of aggression, is based on an analysis of 34,000 men and women by a British academic. Women lash out more frequently than their husbands or boyfriends, concludes John Archer, professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire and president of the International Society for Research on Aggression.



Bruised and battered husbands have been complaining for years and now the biggest research project of its kind has proved them right. When it comes to domestic confrontation, women are more violent than men.


Female aggression isn't less common, it's less respected, whenever a man pushes his wife, he's seen as a vile abuser, when a woman pushes her husband, it's seen as a weak little push that is probably put on him by his own behavior.

Domestic violence is not a man's domain, women are just as if not moreso violent, men are just 200% less likely to complain than women, rather it be because the women don't intimidate or hurt them as much is irrelevant. Men are not "much more likely" to commit any crime against a woman than a woman is to commit against a man. Erin Peezy got ran from her home by suggesting women are violent as men.

Now let's take a look at why primary aggressor laws exist, because the number -- as we just proved is not the issue, otherwise women would never be allowed custody of children since they are more prone to abusing children than men by a long shot......

......

......

Damn...



I can't find any info on it right now.... But I assure you, it's feminist trash.....

Anyway.


Feminism of this age isn't about male=women. It's about giving women new privileges and giving them Women>Male (of course not every feminist is like this]/b]. I am talking about 2000+ feminism). I'm not here to hate on women, but I am here to point out, any help centers for males is significantly lower, than the female counterpart. I mean let me go back to the male rape thing. The first male rape shelter was opened in Sweden I believe? Either way. It was laughed at, and I doubt it will even stay because of the bullshit stigmas of todays age. I would like to see a world where men and women are equal in their represented right, but I doubt that will ever happen. The media is more worried about the Kardashian family rather than real problems.


Yes they are, there are no intelligent feminist, feminism is not a movement for equality, it is a female supremacy movement where all it's efforts focus directly on oppressing men ore manipulating media to suit their ideology.

If a feminist seems intelligent, it's probably because all she saw was some lying feminist talking about all the problems in the world that don't exist for men for some reason and using bogus statistics and lies to force a narrative. Like Female Genital Mutilation, a term coined by a feminist and is told as such to push a rad feminist narrative.

Every feminist is a feminist, that means they're probably mentally handicapped depending on how long they've been a feminist.

I'll be honest, I was never a misandrist, but I used to respect feminism because it sold itself as equality, but actions speak louder than words, and feminism with all it's influence and funding STILL hasn't opened up a shelter for battered men, which they marginalize because to do so would mean that somewhere on the planet, a woman was doing something bad.

They also use abuse by other women and try to hide it under something a man has perpetrated, of course, not all domestic violence is done by one sex to the other, women hit each other, they abuse each other, a dad's girlfriend can and will abuse/molest his daughter the same way a mother's boyfriend would. But they'll manipulate the narrative to have you believe that all women were victimized by men.

So despite the fact that men and women do need protection from each other, they also need protection from people the same sex as them, that's why female on female rape isn't put on trial like a man or college students who are female are raped by females, don't get the feminist or media push behind it, because they can't label either one of them as the "bad" guy. Women victimize each other a ton. Believe it or not. Yes all feminists that understand feminism are like that. If a woman who isn't gynocentric understands feminism enough,she slowly drifts to the MRA camp.


1. I'll follow along with MorbidHanson on this point since he provided a solid argument. I actually hadn't looked at it before in such a manner. I will add though that there is a legitimate problem with shelters for victims of domestic violence, in the manner that male victims are often written off or ignored completely. Karen also did mention family courts which I agree is also an issue, fathers too often get the short end of the stick in that bullshit.


I'll add that his argument was fine, but solid is not a way I would describe that conjecture.


I will correct you though that you misrepresented what Karen said on this point. She attributed this trait to men's emotional competence. Which is an entirely valid conjecture to make on the subject. She also didn't say that men have more compassion than women (even in the respect of strangers), but rather that men do have compassion rather than the lack thereof as masculinity often portrays.


Wrong, she said "emotional intelligence" then went on to cite examples OF men being emotionally competent since "emotional intelligence" means they are less so than women, which is why I said "women aren't more compassionate than men" which is what emotional intelligence from a feminist perspective means.

Also the bolded part is funny because she said this exact thing numerous times throughout her other videos and even on the Honey Badger radio. I think stating the examples as overwhelmingly male was supposed to imply that men as a collective were indeed more compassionate than women.


I've read that book. Please don't tell me you've actually read that book and didn't piss yourself laughing. Please. Please.


This isn't a knock against you, but I hardly doubt anyone in this forum knows more about relationships than Esther Vilar. As someone who's familiar with MGTOW and Red Pill discussions and content, I'd imagine you would have figured out the premise of the book is true.
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
Fucking walls of text.

I have no clue as to if this person is a troll who is just way to in character, or if he/she/it honestly believes some of this shit.
14745 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Fucking walls of text.

I have no clue as to if this person is a troll who is just way to in character, or if he/she/it honestly believes some of this shit.


Well, she's confessed to being diagnosed by "all those wrong doctors" for schizophrenia--and then throws a big snit when anybody "believes" them--but you really couldn't tell that from her threads, could you?

(Y'know, that "Life of the mind" thing where she externalizingly thinks that we pick up on any "trademark" she's chosen for herself because we read every single thread?:
"Okay, folks, more Red Pills from the Honey Badger, I'm gonna pull a Whoopsa-Hey-Hey, and give you another dose of Hot Potato Salad!")
10771 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / MO, USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Ejanss wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

Fucking walls of text.

I have no clue as to if this person is a troll who is just way to in character, or if he/she/it honestly believes some of this shit.


Well, she's confessed to being diagnosed by "all those wrong doctors" for schizophrenia--and then throws a bit snit when anybody "believes" them--but you really couldn't tell that from her threads, could you?


It's just too much to read. So much. I mean I love books and poetry but I can't waste time reading this stuff :/
4315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Arizona
Offline
Posted 12/12/15
I'm gonna give myself a pat on the back for reading all of this.

Now most of this I agree with, but the point about women being less compassionate I have trouble agreeing with.
As you've already stated men are by genetics stronger and in better physical shape than women, so it would make sense that in crisis situations it would be a man who would be the one to act. If a person is in a car crash I don't think a women stopping to help rescue them from a car would be as effective as a man. Its not that they're less compassionate its that they cant help as much.
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

AkitoMadaka wrote:

Fucking walls of text.

I have no clue as to if this person is a troll who is just way to in character, or if he/she/it honestly believes some of this shit.





Ejanss wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

Fucking walls of text.

I have no clue as to if this person is a troll who is just way to in character, or if he/she/it honestly believes some of this shit.


Well, she's confessed to being diagnosed by "all those wrong doctors" for schizophrenia--and then throws a big snit when anybody "believes" them--but you really couldn't tell that from her threads, could you?

(Y'know, that "Life of the mind" thing where she externalizingly thinks that we pick up on any "trademark" she's chosen for herself because we read every single thread?:
"Okay, folks, more Red Pills from the Honey Badger, I'm gonna pull a Whoopsa-Hey-Hey, and give you another dose of Hot Potato Salad!")



It won't stop till people stop replying to this crap. If she gets discussion out of it she wins. Even if its just people complaining about how its too much text it bumps it to the top for more people to see, and reply to.
Posted 12/12/15

eclair-lumiere wrote:

And the award for most brainwashed woman who thinks she's only here to create babies goes to...



Urboistar wrote:


Ejanss wrote:


AkitoMadaka wrote:

Fucking walls of text.

I have no clue as to if this person is a troll who is just way to in character, or if he/she/it honestly believes some of this shit.


Well, she's confessed to being diagnosed by "all those wrong doctors" for schizophrenia--and then throws a big snit when anybody "believes" them--but you really couldn't tell that from her threads, could you?

(Y'know, that "Life of the mind" thing where she externalizingly thinks that we pick up on any "trademark" she's chosen for herself because we read every single thread?:
"Okay, folks, more Red Pills from the Honey Badger, I'm gonna pull a Whoopsa-Hey-Hey, and give you another dose of Hot Potato Salad!")



It won't stop till people stop replying to this crap. If she gets discussion out of it she wins. Even if its just people complaining about how its too much text it bumps it to the top for more people to see, and reply to.


15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
Magical-Soul wrote
another wall of text, stoping going 2 way's on a one way street XP
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

I'll add that his argument was fine, but solid is not a way I would describe that conjecture.


Women are more likely to be killed by intimates and there are statistics for that. I won't get into anything passed that, however.


Magical-Soul wrote:

Wrong, she said "emotional intelligence" then went on to cite examples OF men being emotionally competent since "emotional intelligence" means they are less so than women, which is why I said "women aren't more compassionate than men" which is what emotional intelligence from a feminist perspective means.

Also the bolded part is funny because she said this exact thing numerous times throughout her other videos and even on the Honey Badger radio. I think stating the examples as overwhelmingly male was supposed to imply that men as a collective were indeed more compassionate than women.


Yeah I don't know how feminists warp words, because emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, manage and use emotions and isn't exactly synonymous with compassion. I would like not to assume Karen's use of the term is as misplaced and therefore contributing to its misuse. Emotional competence is the correct manner to address emotional intelligence and her argument provided for that. She does not claim measure, but the ability to claim the existence of compassion in men versus its utter lack of. She does this by offering the conjecture that what we witness in heroic examples is the good management of an emotional response.

You shouldn't assume she is implying anything.

She perhaps has previously said that men can be more compassionate than women. I have never heard her claim anything beyond that. If she had, I would ultimately disagree with her without good merit on her part to back up such a heaping claim composed of a near immeasurable component.


Magical-Soul wrote:
This isn't a knock against you, but I hardly doubt anyone in this forum knows more about relationships than Esther Vilar. As someone who's familiar with MGTOW and Red Pill discussions and content, I'd imagine you would have figured out the premise of the book is true.


Read it. It's a piece of shit, I even sat there with MRA's and MGTOWs alike making fun of the thing. Esther Vilar doesn't even regard women as human. You have to learn how to question material and people, even if it's along the lines of what you would prefer it be. That book was a steaming pile of generalized and obviously unsubstantiated bullshit from a woman who cannot claim to understand women.

As someone who cannot understand women, and I'm sure you have your difficulties as well, why would you put down any scrutiny to believe a woman similar about women? That book is something even I could write effortlessly. It just be me trying to reason with myself why a majority of women act the way the do. Of course I'd also have to put in a couple lines of my frustration--throwing them in the dirt to think myself better at the same time.

Have you really questioned it none? Why do you suddenly let go of your scrutiny at times?

15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

PrinceJudar wrote:

Magical-Soul wrote:

I'll add that his argument was fine, but solid is not a way I would describe that conjecture.


Women are more likely to be killed by intimates and there are statistics for that. I won't get into anything passed that, however.
by other females or something else?

Sogno- 
45654 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0zQf5NMG8E

I'm going to simplify the video below for those that don't wanna watch the whole thing -- but you should at some point,


this is my fav part. i love complete strangers telling me what i should do

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

Freddy96NO wrote:
by other females or something else?



In general. Men are drastically more likely to be killed by strangers. Violence is typically perpetrated by both, but extremity seems to exist more in the male department. Only a trend though, so there are obviously a good bucket of exceptions. Male-male violence is the biggest concern, tbh.

The problem is often the attitude that women are never perpetrators of violence.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.