(cache) tundarがThis sub is fine.について記入したコメント

[–]insickness 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 4 時間前 (2子コメント)

Feminism is for all fucking sexes and all fucking genders.

I am a man and used to consider myself a feminist. I was even a member of the National Organization for Women at my college. This was over 15 years ago.

I still subscribe 100% to all the things feminism supposedly stands for, like fairness and equality in the workplace, equal opportunity, etc. However, most people who call themselves feminists are advocating for the wrong things these days:

Women's rights without the responsibility.
Professional victims who compete with each other for their own level of victimhood
A denial of any inherent biological differences between men and women, as if we both have the same brains with different bodies
The demonization of masculinity (just look for terms like toxic masculinity)

If so-called feminists truly wanted gender equality, you would see some instances where men were defended, particularly in those cases where it is obvious men are getting the short end of the stick, like paternity, being labeled as molesters, etc. But that NEVER happens.

The ACLU actually defended the Klu Klux Klan in court (with a black lawyer) because their case merited it. That's called principle. It would be a cold day in hell before any feminist did this for a man.

[–]tundar -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 4 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Madocvalanor 11 ポイント12 ポイント13 ポイント 4 時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]tundar -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 4 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 1 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]autowikibot 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

Erin Pizzey:

Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (born 19 February 1939) is an English family care activist and a novelist. She became internationally famous for having started one of the first women's refuges (called women's shelters in Canada and the U.S.) in the modern world, Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971, the organisation known today as Refuge.

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.

^Interesting: ^Monmouth ^Women's ^Festival ^| ^Daniel ^Carney ^| ^Double ^O ^(charity) ^| ^White ^Ribbon ^Campaign

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]Acheros 11 ポイント12 ポイント13 ポイント 5 時間前 (10子コメント)

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11 ポイント-10 ポイント-9 ポイント 5 時間前* (9子コメント)

[–]Acheros 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 5 時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs [非表示スコア] 39 分前 (0子コメント)

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9 ポイント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント 4 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Acheros 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 4 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]tundar 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 4 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]kyote42 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 5 時間前 (3子コメント)

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント-6 ポイント 5 時間前 (2子コメント)

Take the following with a grain of salt. It's been at least 2 or 3 years since I thoroughly researched and studied egalitarianism and things may have changed or evolved recently.

There's two trains of thought to egalitarianism: one which is equality for all people (similar to feminism) and one which is equalness* for all people (closer to communist ideology). Equality liberates people to be and live as they choose, they have the opportunity to dictate their own societal role and make changes. Equalness doesn't allow for that free will, it sets people in to societal roles they haven't chosen and denies them the opportunity to dictate their own lives.

*Equalness is probably not the right term to use, but for the life of me it's on the tip of my tongue and I just can't think of it at the moment.

[–]Doriphor [非表示スコア] 38 分前 (1子コメント)

[–][削除されました] 34 分前 (0子コメント)

[deleted]

[–]karmasutur3 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 6 時間前 (21子コメント)

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6 ポイント-5 ポイント-4 ポイント 5 時間前 (20子コメント)

No it really fucking is.

Feminism started as a way to gain women' rights, because we had very few. We succeeded at that, in most parts of the world. There's still places we're fighting for them.

In the places we're closer to equal: feminazis and MRA's are perversing the meaning of feminism to achieve their own means :female superiority and female hatred.

Here's some shit for you that actual feminism and feminists stand for:

Support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and incest: there is almost no support for male victims, and even less for male victims of female aggressors. In some places the law doesn't even allow for a male victim of a female aggressor to be classified as rape.
Alimony: the fact women get alimony at an exponential rate to men is bullcrap! Alimony should be granted because of that particular couple's life style choices, not because she's a woman.
Child custody: Again, women get an unfair fucking advantage when it should be based on the best interest of the child.
Equal benefits for everyone: Paternity leave!
Equal rights for everyone under the law: false-rape accusers need to be fucking arrested and charged!
Equal access to education for everyone: A student being ordered to stay away from another student (cutting off his education, on-campus job, and on-campus housing) because he fucking reminded her of her rapist when he had nothing do with it whatsoever never should've fucking happened.

That's what fucking feminism is.

[–]karmasutur3 16 ポイント17 ポイント18 ポイント 5 時間前 (8子コメント)

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9 ポイント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント 4 時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]karmasutur3 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 4 時間前 (5子コメント)

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント-6 ポイント 4 時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]karmasutur3 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 4 時間前 (2子コメント)

The thing is, most feminists do believes in equality. People just pay attention to the feminazis because controversy is entertaining.

The core premise of feminism is that there is a current and significant power and privilege disparity that favors men.

IF that disparity doesn't exist, or is, on the whole insignificant, or worse, not comparable: Then feminists can believe in equality all they want, it doesn't make them for equality at all.

A good metaphor is, If you think the guy next door has 100$, and you have 50$, and you pass a law that taxes him 25$ and gives it to you, you think that you've accomplished fiscal equality, because now you think that you both have 75$

But if your neighbor only had 50$ to begin with as well, now you have 75$ and they have 25$, and that's not equality at all .

This is modern feminism in a nutshell.

The argument on whether it's intentional or not is up for debate, but it's based wholly on incorrect / outdated / false premises, and any attempts it makes at equality will only result in the exact opposite, until the base premises are re-examined.

Which of course, is black heresy to even casual feminists.

[–]FuckAllSJWs 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 1 時間前 (1子コメント)

Even if so, what they have is another false premise.

Take this whole BULLSHIT about no equal pay for equal work. Ignore the fact that the original study compared apples to oranges, because her getting that degree in Creative Writing is the same as the guy who got that Bachelor's in Engineering, right?

Oh and wait, remember, she fucks off to have a little litter of babies and loses a few months with each one, in addition to the seniority.

So it's not equality of opportunity they want, it's equality of outcome. Marxism in other words. So what if she decides a "work/family balance" means she doesn't stay late, doesn't take the promotion, etc. she should still get paid the same as the guys who don't constantly take calls from sitters and schools and daycares and "be back in two hours, picking up Connor and Maddison from soccer practice" or fuck off and litter the planet with children.

[–]karmasutur3 [非表示スコア] 16 分前 (0子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 5 時間前 (10子コメント)

Here's some shit for you that actual feminism and feminists stand for: Support for victims of sexual and domestic violence and incest: there is almost no support for male victims, and even less for male victims of female aggressors. In some places the law doesn't even allow for a male victim of a female aggressor to be classified as rape. Alimony: the fact women get alimony at an exponential rate to men is bullcrap! Alimony should be granted because of that particular couple's life style choices, not because she's a woman. Child custody: Again, women get an unfair fucking advantage when it should be based on the best interest of the child. Equal benefits for everyone: Paternity leave! Equal rights for everyone under the law: false-rape accusers need to be fucking arrested and charged! Equal access to education for everyone: A student being ordered to stay away from another student (cutting off his education, on-campus job, and on-campus housing) because he fucking reminded her of her rapist when he had nothing do with it whatsoever never should've fucking happened.

Name me ONE feminist, apart from yourself - I mean a major feminist who all the shaven headed cunt munchers listen to - advocating for this.

Last I checked the DV law was still called the "Violence Against Women Act".

The only thing closest to it was when Hermione Grainger started bleating like you just did "Gender relayshuns are apolling to men as well, my fawthah" and then immediately goes into "which is why you need to do what women say and advocate for women and put women first."

[+]tundar スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6 ポイント-5 ポイント-4 ポイント 4 時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 4 時間前 (8子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 3 時間前 (0子コメント)

Was this it?

"There is the perspective that men oppress women. And there is the perspective that people are people, and we are all hurt by rigid sex roles.”…Both perspectives accurately describe our predicament. Men do oppress women. People are hurt by rigid sexist role patterns, These two realities coexist. Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it—it exists. It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns."

In a large paragraph of "men oppress women, the patriarchy blah blah" she says you should acknowledge hurt, and look to mitigate the hurt. Not what causes the hurt. Just the hurt.

Of course, the average feminist responds to this with #male_tears #oh_no_what_bout_the_menz #so_alfalfa #dead_men_dont_whine etc. so fuck feminism.

[–]tundar -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 3 時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 3 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]tundar -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 3 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 3 時間前 (2子コメント)

OMG comedy gold.

https://crabigailadams.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/feminism-is-for-everybody-but-this-book-sucks/

there are little hints of the man-pandering mega-christian hooks was to become here, but my bigger issue with this book is that 1) the book, despite its brevity, veers wildly away from its own stated thesis to act as a basic introductory primer for people reluctant to align themselves with the feminist movement, & 2) the book instead functions as a repository for hooks’s own myriad opinions about what feminism really is & how contentious inter-movement arguments should have shaken out. as such, it is riddled with opinion disguised as fact & questionable arguments built on an ever-shifting bedrock of historical inaccuracy concerning the formations, goals, & fractures within the second wave feminist movement.

in the chapter on female sexuality, hooks spills much ink bemoaning the fact that sex wars of the 1980s “tore apart the feminist movement”. she sums up some of the more provocative theories & assertions of radical feminists like andrea dworkin (including her claim that in a patriarchal society, all intercourse between men & women is rape) & then explains why these theories are wrong & offensive to feminist practice. but at no point does she actually say, “this is my opinionated response to the writings of andrea dworkin.” to do so, she would have to acknowledge that her theories are opinions rather than facts, & she would be giving a confused reader a name to pursue in doing independent outside research.

TL:DR proves my assertion that feminism is for women, and anyone who strays off the plantation gets ass-raped for it. LOL

[–]tundar -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 3 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]la-dirty-cuban 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Krynja 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 5 時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]FuckAllSJWs 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 5 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Krynja -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 4 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]tundar -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 5 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Krynja -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 4 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]nodivisionhwm [非表示スコア] 40 分前 (1子コメント)

[–]LittleHelperRobot [非表示スコア] 39 分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Salvroth 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 6 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]tundar -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 5 時間前* (1子コメント)

[–]Salvroth 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 4 時間前 (0子コメント)

pussypassdenied

調停者