Talk:Feminism

tl;dr

dramatica artices are supposed to be funny. if you want to rant against feminism because you suffer from micropenis and can't get laid, that's fine - as long as you can make your butt hurt funny. Otoh, if you just need a place to type furiously while crying about your inability to get de-virginized, then fuck off because you're boring. --Thegreatamphibian 13:12, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Kill yourself. --Mantequilla (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Missing Images

• File:Feminist street rally.jpg
• 
• File:Anti suffrage.jpg

- Mr Jonzz 23:17, 22 May 2012 (EDT)

Their views on transgenders

Feminists hate transgenders. They hate transwomen because they weren't born as a woman to experience their pain and they hate transmen because they want to be a man. Genderbenders aren't even allowed in their rallies. We need more info on this. Lord Tony 17:45, 8 May 2015 (EDT)

• Trans-exclusionary feminism. Yeah. Someone could write it up. oddguy 18:52, 8 May 2015 (EDT)

THIS ARTICLE IS UTTER SHIT

• It's too long and all people do all day is edit war over it, adding more and more of their tl;dr butthurt opinions about how mad they are at feminists. oddguy 05:32, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

Is life unfair to women? (memory-holed from Reddit)

The mainstream media would have you believe that women are at a disadvantage in life and that there is no such thing as "misandry". But is that true? Let's examine the facts.

In March 2022, this was posted to Reddit: "A reminder that men in America are 73% of national lawmakers, run 81% of businesses, are 70% of those making six figures, 87% of millionaires and 73% of positions in STEM fields. Don’t ever let anti-feminists tell you that we live in some kind of ‘feminized’ country where men are the true oppressed"

(Source: www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/t9n4qr/a_reminder_that_men_in_america_are_73_of_national/ )

This whiny Reddit post just throws some randomly picked statistics which allegedly prove that women are at a disadvantage in life, and then, as a metaphorical cherry on top of the pie, it tells readers to close their minds to opposing views. However, one can only make a rational judgement after considering both sides' arguments.

For example, 73% of lawmakers are men? So what percentage of men are lawmakers? That's the important question. Even if this statistic were true, only a vanishingly tiny percentage of the total population are lawmakers to begin with. The same applies to the other metrics.

Now, why was this apparently not brought up in the comments below this post? Well, if you don't happen to be a moderator of the "TwoXChromosomes" subreddit, there is no way for you to see how many comments were quietly swept under the rug, meaning removed.

Could it be that fewer women even seek lawmakership and those other high positions in first place? Perhaps they are more after the natural task of raising the next generation while their loving male partner takes care of finances and housing? This is the healty way that is intended by evolution. There is a reason nature has gifted the female with a womb and milky breasts. It is not "dishonourable" for women to raise the next generation; actually quite the opposite.

---

Now, let's have a look at who is treated favourably in society.

If you are a man, you have to expect that no one is going to help you when you're stuck. As a man, one has to deal with problems by oneself. People have sympathy with a woman's hurt feelings, but when a man dares to shed a tear, it is considiered "whining" and "butthurt". A man who reveals his feelings exposes himself to ridicule and hostility, so men are pressured by society into keeping their feelings and needs to themselves.

Examples:

• If a woman catches an illness, people have sympathy. If a man gets ill, he is seen as weak and pathetic.
• Some men have the genetic misfortune of being too short. Let's not kid ourselves, women prefer mating with tall men, and everyone knows it. For shorter men, mating (finding a sexual partner) becomes astronomically difficult.

There is no "body positivity" for short men like there is for obese women, and the former is not able to select or change their height.

• Baldness. This is an obligatory one. Hair loss has been plaguing men for all of human history, whereas women can rest assured that this does not happen to them. Or how often in your life have you seen a bald woman? If you are a man who has not had hair loss (colloquially "norwood reaper") so far but your father or at least one of your grandparents has it, tough luck. Once it starts, your appearance will age by decades within a few years. You might look like age 20 when you are 20, but then you go bald and by 25, you look twice your age.

There is a trope that women become less suitable for dating past age 30 because they are "damaged goods" and their physical beauty plunges quickly, but baldness eats into mens' top hair faster than women get wrinkles, and baldness can commence unannouncedly at any age.

• The burden of dating weighs on men. Men interested in mating have to approach women, not vice versa (the other way around). Men need to absorb rejection like Air France flight 447 had to absorb stormy atlantic weather.
• A man approaching a woman harmlessly and without ill intentions can be labelled as "catcaller", and now someone who is innocently interested in finding a mate is labelled as evil.

From the trailer to "Gloria" ( www.dailymotion.com/video/x7xcq4x ): "Women got the greatest deal in the world. All they gotta do is fall in love, and some guy just takes care of it."

• The "wage gap" or "pay gap" is illogical, since anyone receiving less payment for the same work would be more desirable for hiring, since the company would have to pay less to get the same work done. Mathematics 101.
  • Even if the pay gap were real, it would not even be 1% as bad as conscription, since that literally puts men at the risk of death.

So quit whining that you allegedly get paid less, becase you are allowed to stay alive.

• If you need to swap a tire, as a pretty-looking woman, you can find a man willing to help you. As a man, you will have to deal with it by yourself.
• As a pretty-looking woman, one can find a man willing to charge your smartphone's empty battery from his powerbank. As a man? Tough luck.
• Computer problem? As a pretty-looking woman, you can rapidly find an Instagram simp among your followers who is willing to help you out. You effectively have a premium support service at your fingertips, and you need not even pay a penny. As a man? Go figure.
• Men are shamed for their sexual desires, even though it has always been fundamental to the survival of the species. The men without sexual desires did not procreate. They went extinct in stone age. It is perfectly natural for a man to have strong sexual desires.
• Homelessness. Fatal accidents at work. Need I say more?
• Mahsa Amini dies, the news mourn about it for weeks on repeat. But when men die en masse, it is considered a boring statistic. A simple number. A few digits on a screen. Nothing more.
• The subreddit "/r/againstmensrights" is openly hateful and advocates for violence against men. Its sidebar has a picture that reads "misandry time" in large all-uppercase letters. For those who don't know, misandry is defined as hatred and hostility against men. So the subreddit is openly and proudly stating that they are misandrist. Finding comments wishing illness and violence upon men does not take long, and yet this subreddit is allowed to exist. In fact, as of 2014, the sidebar literally called for the death of all men, "all men must die" ( web.archive.org/web/20140327204624/www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/ ). Ironically, this sidebar was created on computers built by men.

Can you guess what would (rightfully) happen to a subreddit wishing the same upon women?

• Conscription, obviously. Men can forcibly get drafted into the army in some countries. Their lives are put at risk and they get to defend a government that couldn't care less about their well-being. "Yeah, fight for us, you disposable person!"
• When a woman is killed, that is referred to as "femicide", and it is considered a big deal. Hypocritically, men killed en masse in mandatory military service are not referred to as "androcide" but just as "having bad luck".
• Who was saved when the Titanic sank in 1912? Hint: not men.
• Paternity tests require the woman's consent in some countries. This means men are not allowed to verify the identity of "their" children and women are free to cheat.
• Who gets better grades at school for the same performance? You already know.
• Men who dare to discuss their mental health publicly do get no support. Instead, they only expose themselves to ridicule.

For all the great inventions made by men, including the very device you are reading this on, men receive little appreciation. They are still treated badly. In effect, male lives do not matter.

As we have examined, it actually is misandry, the hatred and hostility against men, that is "deeply rooted in society" (wording from the "misandry" Wikipedia article). Violence and hazard against men are openly accepted, and in some places even enforced by law through conscription.

Sounds patriarchial, right? Right? And we are not even done yet.

There is an industrially-sized can of worms that has been haunting hundreds of millions of men for generations. You already know what it is.

Dare I mention it?

Of course.

C-I-R-C-U-M-C-I-S-I-O-N.

Which of the two (yes, two) genders can have a highly sensitive part of their sexual organ removed against consent? Members of which gender can be permanently excluded from the greatest enjoymet of life, which, as we all perfectly well know but fail to admit, is sex? Hint: Not the one that starts with "f".

Not only does the unforgivable crime of circumcision inflict enormous pain on the child, but also causes life-long pain and abrasion to the glans, an internal organ, by unprotectely rubbing against the underwear. Any circumcised man is familiar with this, even if they fail to admit it.

Men might not be entitled to sex, as often said by the feminism movement, but men are sure as hell entitled to retaining all body parts granted to them by nature.

As a side note, Wikipedia's claim that circumcision "does not affect sensitivity" is at odds with the basic understanding of physics, and everyone knows this. Who are we kidding here? It is abundantly obvious that circumcision damages sensitivity. Fewer nerve endings inevitably lead to less sensitivity, and future people will rightfully mock us for foolishly believing otherwise.

Similarly, removing the tip of the tongue reduces taste sensitivity. Any "study" that claims otherwise is similarly fraudulent as those tobacco studies from 60 years ago that denied the harm of smoking. Today, we think of the people from those times as fools. Similarly, in half a century, the people of the next generation will rightfully think of us as fools for accepting circumcision.

In fact, the Foreskin has three layers of sensitivity and protects what is an internal organ, the glans, from abrasion. The skin does not go all the way to the end but is interrupted by an unnatural scar. Removing the foreskin both annihilates most sensitivity and exposes an internal organ, similarly to eyes without eyelids. Whoever does not acknowledge this either does not have the first clue, or, more likelier than not, is emotionally coping with their own circumcision, and wants to avoid having to acknowledge that they are permanently physically damaged. Coping knows no bounds. This psychological horror is how circumcision perpetuates itself.

Only men with foreskin can experience a deep and immersive intimacy with a woman. All that remains to circumcised men is shallow and superficial "sex". Not superior but superficial.

How come children are targeted by circumcision, rather than adults? Because children have no defense. Childrens' vulnerability is exploited for monetary gains. They are unable to say "no" like adults can say to tobacco. Not only can children not decline a circumcision, but, they are in fact not even asked. Someone else picks the body the children will have to spend their future adult life with. Children are among the most vulnerable in our society, making them ideal targets. For the same reason, any other sexual activity involving infants is strictly illegal, except the amputation of a highly sensitive and protective part, the foreskin. Our society has failed badly at protecting boys.

Even if circumcision was as glorious as Wikipedia claims it is, it does not negate that circumcised boys are the primary target of bullying in locker rooms.

Since circumcision significantly decreases the target's quality of life for these reasons (chronic pain, removal of enjoyment, sense of incompleteness, school bullying), it can be argued that it is 10% as bad as homicide. The child lives on, though the remainder of his life is considerably less enjoyable. It is clouded by pain and devoid of enjoyment, which makes it as bad as a considerable fraction of ending a life. Besides, did I mention that babies often bleed to death from circumcision? In those cases, it is 100% as bad. Can you name one thing about forced sexual intercourse that is not included in the surgical assault that is circumcision? Since it is performed on a high number of men, this makes circumcision hardly distinguishable from terrorism.

Ask yourself, which child in their right mind would approve of having a body part permanently injured, let alone the thing that makes them a man and distinguishes them most from the opposite gender?

So if you are not affected by this, quit complaining about how "unfair" life allegedly is, because you have never experienced unfairness on any comparable scale.

Thankfully I saved this essay before it got memory-holed from Reddit. And unlike what one might expect, it contains zero mysygyny. --CurtainMan (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2023 (EST)