This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

全 11 件のコメント

[–]tb87670 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

Several times in history there have been movements that fall apart once the enemy is vanquished. Feminism, if all it's goals are accomplished to completion, will destroy the human race...yes, that's right, that means mankind AND womankind. It's a snake eating it's own tail. Women deep down want the men they despise.

It's almost like all this feminist BS is the ultimate cultural shit-test. The men they hate the most happen to be the ones they get the tingles for the most. Those successful independent men who have their shit together and don't falter or sway easily like all the useless beta's that suck up to the feminist cause, the few who keep on being manly even in these anti-masculine times are passing this massive cultural shit-test.

[–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

One of the most common feminist tropes is making men more emotional and affectionate. Ironically enough, there are many men who do show their feelings and emotions in front of women, yet women never seem to be attracted to them. It's almost as if women use feminism as one giant shit-test to filter out men. The men who are gullible enough to follow feminist dating advice are automatically placed in the friendzone.

This is why you never see male feminists getting laid left and right. Even the most feminist of women would rather fuck the alpha douchebag Chad than the sweet/caring/emotional male feminist who would never cheat on her.

[–]CourageousCauliflowr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

men are already waaaaay too emotional. observe them watching sports or bowing up on some other dude. completely testerical.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    After swallowing the Red Pill, it makes more sense as to why women shit-test the way they do. I just wish they'd at least be honest about the type of man they are into. It's getting so annoying hearing from every woman how much they want the gentle feminine man.

    I have no problem women being attracted to strong masculine men. That's human nature. It would just be a relief to stop hearing that nice guy nonsense come out of every single woman/feminist.

    [–]Rasalom72 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    But they are being honest. They actually believe that what they want is a kind caring guy... they don't even understand how their own brain works..they can't help tingles... that's why "it just happened" and "I accidentally slept with that hot dude."

    [–]CourageousCauliflowr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    slaves want to pick cotton and hand-harvest sugar cane and work in sweatshops! they like it.. see? they eat the food given them. they show up every day. they even joke together and laugh sometimes.

    SEE?!!? stupid wimmins.

    [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.”

    “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.”

    In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

    [–]hotsweetleather1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    In 1917, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful.

    The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed. The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists.

    They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

    [–]hotsweetleather1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative.

    They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down.

    And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

    [–]hotsweetleather1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    WE need to step up.

    Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.

    Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought.

    They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

    [–]CourageousCauliflowr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    said like someone who's never had a period, never expected one, never had a late one, never given birth, and never lactated.