First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Toxic Masculinity and Toxic Femininity
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

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......



One study alone is hardly a dependable source of information. I've read the contrary in many casebooks. There are many other studies that have shown than men are more aggressive than women. Men have more testosterone than women, generally have more strength so they are more likely to cause lasting damage, and are statistically by far the most likely to kill family members and significant others. Although it's true that men are less likely to report domestic violence, the gap is not even close to being closed even after attempts to use an estimate to fill it up. You could double or triple the number of cases of reported woman-on-man domestic violence and the man-on-woman bar is still significantly taller.

I don't exactly understand where you're approaching from, but I'm approaching it from the perspective of the law. Since you're talking about laws, I figured it would be okay to see it like how the justice system sees it. Well, how they're supposed to see it, anyway.

The problem with suddenly treating female aggression as severely as male aggression at this point is, true, that female aggression tends to be less "respected" because it is also not as able to cause damage. A man is usually stronger and heavier than his wife, so a shove from her is not going to do the same thing as her shoving him. Kids can be pretty aggressive, too, and little boys and girls hit things all the time but you don't see any sane people trying to treat child aggression like adult aggression. Children aren't generally able to do as much damage. They CAN, but they generally don't.

Last time I checked, domestic violence and murder and aggravated assault tend to be malum in se, that is they are morally wrong for some reason. They are not malum prohibitum like those city ordinances that tell you not to park on the side of the street on wednesday nights.

Why? This might vary, but I think such acts are wrong because of the damage they are able to do. For an act to be considered worthy of punishment, it usually needs to produce some damage or some injury. The actor needs to have the requisite intent, and the act that stems from that intent needs to produce that aforementioned damage. You could have the most vile and culpable criminal mindset and pair it with an intentional act, but there's nothing to punish if the completed act produces no damage, or produces damage not worth reporting.

When it comes to punishing criminals and wrongdoers, we usually advocate proportional punishment. Proportional to what? To the amount of damage they have wrought. Therefore, the same act by different actors may do varying amounts of damage. Those who do more damage should be punished more than those who do less. Of course, this is grossly oversimplified, and we have to look at factors like intent, reasonableness, state of mind, etc. But I think this is a pretty easy way to explain it. Otherwise, we'd be here all day. The law further simplifies this by making broad categories. They do this mainly to save time and effort. They do this for the same reason the IRS does not send everyone a personalized tax filing form based on their life story and unique needs and traits. It may sound a bit unfair, and it is, but the alternative is wasting more tax dollars for our judges to spend longer poring over small details to come up with erratic rulings based on how the judge feels at the time.

There's also the issue that violence by women is viewed a certain way by most societies. It's more of a social issue than a legal issue. The law can't punish someone for causing damage if it doesn't know about it. You're STILL under the misconception that these laws are in place IN ORDER TO make men more easily convicted of domestic abuse. I'll stick with my blue and red candy boxes from earlier. And I'm still choosing the blue box since it's still more likely to contain my candy.

Child custody laws are starting to change, FYI. We aren't living in 1980 anymore.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
>Karen Straughan

Top Kek. Whatever happened to the Honey Badger Brigade suing those people. They got a shit ton of money for that.

Anyway needless to say I disagree with the video. I cant really afford to get into a long discussion about it though given that exams are coming up.
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 12/12/15


stars201 wrote:


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.




I'm confused. Why are you showing me this? Are they talking about me?

I have never been diagnosed with schizophrenia and have never hinted that I have. I'm assuming they were talking about the OP, but if they mean me then they are very misinformed.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

PrinceJudar wrote: The problem is often the attitude that women are never perpetrators of violence.
yeah you do see those who loves blood/gore and being the totally opposite of a mothers love/caring.
Dunno where I wanted to go with this but:

27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

PrinceJudar wrote:

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.



Pretty much this. Aggressors are WAY MORE likely to be men than women. Men are also much more likely to kill their family members and girlfriends. If women are somehow 50/50 with men when it comes to general domestic violence, that would be a very strange trend.

That being said, just because a problem is smaller doesn't mean it is not a problem. I think I've said this a number of times on CR. But we do have to be realistic about our priorities when solving them.
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

eclair-lumiere wrote:



stars201 wrote:


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.




I'm confused. Why are you showing me this? Are they talking about me?

I have never been diagnosed with schizophrenia and have never hinted that I have. I'm assuming they were talking about the OP, but if they mean me then they are very misinformed.


No I quoted you along with theirs bc I agreed with you four

10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 12/12/15



No I quoted you along with theirs bc I agreed with you four





Oh sorry, I misunderstood.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

Morbidhanson wrote:

Pretty much this. Aggressors are WAY MORE likely to be men than women. Men are also much more likely to kill their family members and girlfriends. If women are somehow 50/50 with men when it comes to general domestic violence, that would be a very strange trend.

That being said, just because a problem is smaller doesn't mean it is not a problem. I think I've said this a number of times on CR. But we do have to be realistic about our priorities when solving them.


Yep, we're very much on the same lines of thought again.



2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

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


As the perpetrators of domestic violence moreso than men, I find this hard to believe, but since you decided not to post statistics since it's not the point of discussion, I'll just leave it at: "no, not really"


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.


In her video on hypoagency she said "women as a collective very much are." In which, she was referring to them as problems. Karen also wouldn't be misusing the word if she was right, and even if she wasn't(statistically she's right), this wouldn't be the first time Karen has been wrong about something or the fact that we may disagree with her. She says a lot of stuff about what women I don't agree with, and she's also a firm believer of AWALT, she doesn't believe Red Pill women and Honey Badgers like myself are any different than none red pill women or none Honey Badgers. This is my biggest issue with Stardust and Karen, they go out of their way to say red pill women/honey badgers are not different from women. I don't agree with everything she says, I don't agree with everything anyone says,


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?


I notice that you revert to post modern ideology whenever generalizations come into play, as if generalizations are bad because they offend people. Generalizations are only bad if they are largely incorrect, if they are largely correct, they are true.

Esther Vilar's generalizations are generalizations because it's a book about men and women, not "some men and some women" but men and women, there is no possible way to account for every individual woman on the planet and say a generalization is bad because it doesn't account for all of them. Saying men have penises is a generalization since we aren't going to account for unfortunate men who were born without or had to have them cut off.

This isn't about saying every woman is the same and Esther Vilar's never claimed that every woman is and will be a manipulative cuntlord. It's just the fact that so many of them are, we'd be forgiven if we don't take notice of the 3-5 women for every 10,000 wave of whores on the market.

People are animals, people are apes, you said you like Stardust, right? His handle is "Thinking Ape" because he wants to be objective. Humans are apes, and they're the same apes from 10,000 years ago, at no point in time did humans ever gain the wisdom and enlightenment to be free from "labels", "generalizations", they never biologically advanced, they technologically advanced, every single thing that applies to other animals and objects applies to humans.

It makes my blood boil when people refuse generalizations on the basis that the subjects are human, even if there are provable statistics.

We have numerous groups that are reactionary and causes from women's behavior, MRA, PUA, Red Pill, MGTOW, DJs, etc. we have herbivore men and we have societies on the brink of collapse because of women. But it's wrong to label and generalize because 10 people's moms/sisters might get mislabeled. And this is somehow more important than giving us factual statistical information to work with?

What. The. Actual. Fuck

The first part to discrediting Esther Vilar's book would be to point out its errors. I can't point out any errors as I cannot factually get all the statistics that may have been true in 1971 Germany.

You can't factual discredit information on the basis that a couple of MRAs and MGTOW may do so as well. There are definitely manginas in both camps, so I can't say they're wrong, as they and yourself can joke about whatever you want.

But to say my scrutiny vanishes at times is incorrect, to reject without counter evidence is something I would say is the disappearance of scrutiny.

If you're(or anyone reading) is still with me, let me point out a bad generalize that perpetually rammed down our throats.

Let's use the NAWALT/Honey Badger as good example, these types of women do not wish to be lumped with the average social media narcissist. Right? Honey Badger is a brand I use to distinguish myself from women who don't identify as red pill/Honey Badgers, we do not wish to be evaluated beside those women, it's why we have divisive terms, to separate us from things we do not wish to reflect on us. When Stardust or Karen make the awful assumption that red pill girls are as much a slave to their biological imperatives as the average cunt is a bad generalization. As there's no proof or statistics to pull from. Yes, we know 99% of women are slaves to their imperatives, but 99% of women aren't Honey Badgers. There is no study or documentary available to give us the values and behavior of the average Honey Badger, there is no "US Honey Badger census bureau" to inform us on this particular group.

That is a bad generalization, that's when you can say that was bad. But you can't say a generalization on the basis of anecdotes or just the post modern idealism that humans are too special to be understood.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

One study alone is hardly a dependable source of information. I've read the contrary in many casebooks. There are many other studies that have shown than men are more aggressive than women. Men have more testosterone than women, generally have more strength so they are more likely to cause lasting damage, and are statistically by far the most likely to kill family members and significant others. Although it's true that men are less likely to report domestic violence, the gap is not even close to being closed even after attempts to use an estimate to fill it up. You could double or triple the number of cases of reported woman-on-man domestic violence and the man-on-woman bar is still significantly taller.


Citation needed? You're a silly one if you think that study is the only one I have, I have many, many more. Feel free to post your own, if applicable.


I don't exactly understand where you're approaching from, but I'm approaching it from the perspective of the law. Since you're talking about laws, I figured it would be okay to see it like how the justice system sees it. Well, how they're supposed to see it, anyway.


I thought I quoted you on your "men are much more likely" statement? You are saying men are bigger perpetrators of domestic violence, I'm saying you're very wrong about being "much more likely" as men are bigger number of victims of all violent crimes, which makes absolutely no sense if we take your past reasoning for primary aggression being a law, that men are "much more likely" to be the perpetrator, which is wrong. Than we have the fact that men are factually more likely to be victims of all violent crimes, which we all have statistics on.


There's also the issue that violence by women is viewed a certain way by most societies. It's more of a social issue than a legal issue. The law can't punish someone for causing damage if it doesn't know about it. You're STILL under the misconception that these laws are in place IN ORDER TO make men more easily convicted of domestic abuse. I'll stick with my blue and red candy boxes from earlier. And I'm still choosing the blue box since it's still more likely to contain my candy.


It was so men could be made more likely to get convicted.

Why are you saying "men are much more likely" to be the perpetrators but you're also claiming the law isn't anti male? You're going to have pick one or the other since I can't debate post modern ideology, not even a Honey Badger is capable of being right about two conflicting statements.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15
Men-on-men violence is a big thing. That is why men are more likely to be victims of violent crime. It's not because women are just as aggressive and violent. I'm not going to pull up random studies from the infallible internet and engage in Google games. If you have so many more studies and I have so many more studies, it will turn into a quote pyramid that doesn't end up anywhere. All you need to do is Google, and I'm not going to type up pages from my criminal law casebooks lol

This is for the people reading this thread, since it seems you want to win rather than see.

You're still mixing up the intent of legislature with the actual effect of the legislature. Until this is cleared up, it's pretty much impossible to have this kind of discussion and have a productive exchange.

Red box/blue box again. One piece of candy. It is more likely that the blue box will contain the candy, so you choose the blue box.

This doesn't make you anti-red, doesn't mean you think that blue will always be the right choice or that red will always be the wrong choice. Your intent when you made the choice was to have the best possible chance to get the candy. This isn't even me at this point, this is how the law sees it. I agree with this approach.

It starts to become a problem when blue is chosen more than red even though the person making the choice is given more information and is able to make a better-informed choice but still does not. Or perhaps there is an instance in which it's made known that the red box will contain the candy but you pick blue anyway. But these will tend to be influences of circumstantial factors, not prima facie cases.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

Magical-Soul wrote:



They're bad when they have a lack of evidence to uphold them. That is when generalizations are bad.


It is quite incredible that men, whose desire for knowledge knows no bounds in every other field, are really totally blind to these facts, that they are incapable of seeing women as they really are: with nothing else to offer but a vagina, two breasts and some punch cards programmed with idle, stereotyped chatter; that they are nothing more than conglomerations of matter, lumps of stuffed human skin pretending to be thinking human beings.

...

But it should be emphasized that the fault lies with man himself, who valued women according to standards by which people and animals are on the same level. If he had not done so, women would hardly fit into the group Homo sapiens.
-Esther Vilar


Yeah. Bullshit. She did not call women animals because humans are animals, she clearly made a distinction right fuckin' thar.

Her book wasn't based off statistics, so no, you can't find any errors in a drivel of highly opinionated observation and notion.

You try to distinguish yourself from women, but why? Why do other women deserve to be written off as a slave to their villainous ''imperatives' and women who say they ought not to be, what then--shouldn't be? What's wrong with being average and being judged on the basis of your individual? On the content of your character? Why should you be believed over other? What does a self proclamation of 'I am not like them' really do? Should other be written off simply because they then do not claim an awareness?

I obviously don't agree with Karen and Stardust, I disagree with plenty, but they're worth listening to in order to enhance my questioning with their conjectures of possible explanation for one matter or another. I don't have to agree like a blind fool to enjoy listening.

I don't agree with their lack of exception, obviously. It's an oversimplification of human complexity and many factors.


6088 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / US
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

stars201 wrote:


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.




2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/12/15

This is for the people reading this thread, since it seems you want to win rather than see.


See? You've shown nothing, I'd say it's the other way around, the acceptance of facts is how we move forward. If I were to post this somewhere people can see, you would have changed no one's mind because you don't have a point you wish to push. Men are "much more likely" to be aggressive, okay, sure, the only people who will take that at face value would be a feminist of any other version of a gynocentric woman or gynocentric man/mangina.

You can post for others, that's fine, but I don't really like to talk in circles and ignore elephants in the room.


Yeah. Bullshit. She did not call women animals because humans are animals, she clearly made a distinction right fuckin' thar.

Her book wasn't based off statistics, so no, you can't find any errors in a drivel of highly opinionated observation and notion.


Pretending to be "thinking humans", not that women weren't humans, but that they'd not be on the same level as men, which we can assume is a thinking human.

And she went on to say... "But" and they'd hardly fit as a human(or homo sapien, whatever). Now you're doing what you accused me of initially. Lol


You try to distinguish yourself from women, but why? Why do other women deserve to be written off as a slave to their villainous ''imperatives' and women who say they ought not to be, what then--shouldn't be? What's wrong with being average and being judged on the basis of your individual? On the content of your character? Why should you be believed over other? What does a self proclamation of 'I am not like them' really do? Should other be written off simply because they then do not claim an awareness?


PrinceJudar, you've got to fucking kidding me. xD

You know exactly why I don't wanna be evaluated alongside women. Women don't wanna be evaluated alongside each other, "woman" is now an insult, we heard of men being called "women" as an insult, it's an insult to a woman to call her a woman.

Nobody wants to be what we all know to be a "woman", if you watch FeminismLOL, even Diana Davison said she wasn't a woman, but she's "female" instead.

Pretty much everything associated with western women is bad, I don't like them and they hardly like themselves.

As a generalization, women do things and act in ways that reflect on other women, I understand this and it makes sense, the most intelligent thing to do at this point would be for women and girls who do not wish to carry the same stigma, to disassociate themselves with most women.

I have traits and imperatives that other women do not possess. So I want to make sure that people know that, take a look at this thread, or my previous threads and look at how women reacted. I would not react in the same way, rather they see this as a positive or a negative is beside the point, women who specifically say they are NAWALTs/Honey Badgers, etc don't care for what most women think, they don't have the same predispositions as those women and they do not wish to be treated or looked at as the same way.

That's why(as you already known) some brand themselves as something different. I'm not gynocentric, women are, Honey Badgers are not.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/12/15 , edited 12/12/15

Magical-Soul wrote:Pretending to be "thinking humans", not that women weren't humans, but that they'd not be on the same level as men, which we can assume is a thinking human.

And she went on to say... "But" and they'd hardly fit as a human(or homo sapien, whatever). Now you're doing what you accused me of initially. Lol


That's not helping her case.

It's quite forthright and not really room for anything to be implied...but alright.


Magical-Soul wrote:
PrinceJudar, you've got to fucking kidding me. xD

You know exactly why I don't wanna be evaluated alongside women. Women don't wanna be evaluated alongside each other, "woman" is now an insult, we heard of men being called "women" as an insult, it's an insult to a woman to call her a woman.

Nobody wants to be what we all know to be a "woman", if you watch FeminismLOL, even Diana Davison said she wasn't a woman, but she's "female" instead.

Pretty much everything associated with western women is bad, I don't like them and they hardly like themselves.

As a generalization, women do things and act in ways that reflect on other women, I understand this and it makes sense, the most intelligent thing to do at this point would be for women and girls who do not wish to carry the same stigma, to disassociate themselves with most women.

I have traits and imperatives that other women do not possess. So I want to make sure that people know that, take a look at this thread, or my previous threads and look at how women reacted. I would not react in the same way, rather they see this as a positive or a negative is beside the point, women who specifically say they are NAWALTs/Honey Badgers, etc don't care for what most women think, they don't have the same predispositions as those women and they do not wish to be treated or looked at as the same way.

That's why(as you already known) some brand themselves as something different. I'm not gynocentric, women are, Honey Badgers are not.


Well, wouldn't it be simpler to just be evaluated as a person?

FeminismLOL was a nut when she said that. One cannot dissociate themselves with their gender simply because they'd prefer to avoid being stereotyped. She's a woman whether she likes it or not. I mean it sounds stupid, like the shit I'd read on Tumblr: "I'm not a woman! I identify as female."

Just what the bloody fuck. What is that? Femalekin?

Being disassociated is not achieved by labeling yourself and framing your mind to lookin' through a box. People will associate you however they please, whether you label yourself or not. You should worry less about how others perceive you and more about how you perceive yourself. Others should be able to do the math. People only need to know what you put on the table and judge it for themselves, so there's no point in identifying as a spangly assed unicorn.

I haven't had the best experiences with women but I don't claim to understand them either. Heck, I barely understand people, but I don't go around saying "I'm not a human! I identify as a person."

C'mon now. Stereotypes are not something to be feared, they're there to be challenged. So why would I mind being evaluated among women? I ain't got time for a person who can't use their own head and set of eyes.

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