(April 25, 2013 at 8:33 am)frz Wrote: I believe in women's right to do whatever they please. Women always used to tell me I'm too nice but at the end of the day I'm still labeled as the same as all the other men. Idk. Something is not right there.

What you touch on is a bit more complicated than just feminism or misandry.

Feminists want to solve the problem of women being treated like lesser beings. This treatment can come from men or other women. I have a lot of problems with suggestions put forth by even reasonable feminists because I think they treat some symptoms, but not the causes.

Women have to decide individually what it is they want in a man, what it is that makes them uncomfortable and why. They have to stop worrying about being judged by their peers as well as the rest of society. They have to stop falling into the same generalization trap that men do. If men pull sexist jokes on women, well, women do the same thing. I can't tell you the number of women who told me my boyfriend was gay because he complimented my shoes and has, since day 1, taken an active interest in the contents of my closet or make-up bag. My boyfriend is definitely straight, or if their stereotyping is true, then he's bi. What he *is*, is a photographer with a keen eye for fashion and detail. He has a Don Draper sense of style and he likes his pretty woman dressed up in things that flatter her and show off her prettiness. He snidely told one woman that he wouldn't have noticed my shoes if he hadn't been looking at the legs leading down to them.

But noticing things like this and appreciating women and their 'feminine' clothing somehow makes him gay. Men aren't supposed to be detail oriented - they're supposed to be hulking masses of hormones who want sex all the time and never notice your hair and are more stupid than not. Or so we tell ourselves whilst most CEO's are still male. Don't tell me that all of them don't notice details and got on top solely because they were male. Do you know what this is? It's a divvying up of talents that's bullshit and leads to a lot of job problems.

We don't teach our men to be men - we teach them not to be "female". I'd say the same was true of women.

It's easy for a woman to bitch that she wants a nice man, and then blame the man when he's not what she actually wanted. It doesn't change what you actually are - you're probably not a bad guy or a door mat. You just weren't what she thought she wanted, something she probably didn't even understand herself.

Quote:they're supposed to be hulking masses of hormones who want sex all the time and never notice your hair and are more stupid than not.

Chceck, check, and check. What the problem is?

(April 25, 2013 at 9:01 am)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:they're supposed to be hulking masses of hormones who want sex all the time and never notice your hair and are more stupid than not.

Chceck, check, and check. What the problem is?

[busses cheek] give over, Irish.

(April 25, 2013 at 8:58 am)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(April 25, 2013 at 8:33 am)frz Wrote: I believe in women's right to do whatever they please. Women always used to tell me I'm too nice but at the end of the day I'm still labeled as the same as all the other men. Idk. Something is not right there.

What you touch on is a bit more complicated than just feminism or misandry.

Feminists want to solve the problem of women being treated like lesser beings. This treatment can come from men or other women. I have a lot of problems with suggestions put forth by even reasonable feminists because I think they treat some symptoms, but not the causes.

Women have to decide individually what it is they want in a man, what it is that makes them uncomfortable and why. They have to stop worrying about being judged by their peers as well as the rest of society. They have to stop falling into the same generalization trap that men do. If men pull sexist jokes on women, well, women do the same thing. I can't tell you the number of women who told me my boyfriend was gay because he complimented my shoes and has, since day 1, taken an active interest in the contents of my closet or make-up bag. My boyfriend is definitely straight, or if their stereotyping is true, then he's bi. What he *is*, is a photographer with a keen eye for fashion and detail. He has a Don Draper sense of style and he likes his pretty woman dressed up in things that flatter her and show off her prettiness. He snidely told one woman that he wouldn't have noticed my shoes if he hadn't been looking at the legs leading down to them.

But noticing things like this and appreciating women and their 'feminine' clothing somehow makes him gay. Men aren't supposed to be detail oriented - they're supposed to be hulking masses of hormones who want sex all the time and never notice your hair and are more stupid than not. Or so we tell ourselves whilst most CEO's are still male. Don't tell me that all of them don't notice details and got on top solely because they were male. Do you know what this is? It's a divvying up of talents that's bullshit and leads to a lot of job problems.

We don't teach our men to be men - we teach them not to be "female". I'd say the same was true of women.

It's easy for a woman to bitch that she wants a nice man, and then blame the man when he's not what she actually wanted. It doesn't change what you actually are - you're probably not a bad guy or a door mat. You just weren't what she thought she wanted, something she probably didn't even understand herself.

Wow, nice comment I believe the whole notion Nices guys finish last. Or the current model what gender roles are is strickly. I think we need more actualization. And yes I am a guy who wants to know what her GF likes to wear, I want to know what kind of make up she likes, and finally I cry in romance movies. I think what makes a man a man is merely a fact he faces his flaws and tries to fix them. He allows himself to be himself regardless of society. And finally realizes just be him and not this "be a man". Self realization is better than socialital roles anyday.

(April 25, 2013 at 1:54 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: I Think you have a unigue out look on this. Reverse Sexism is definatly and issue and thank you reconizing that. IT is true women do have it bad in some situations. I believe where the worse misandry and male discrimnation occurs is with in the legal system. Where a man is torn apart like the poor sheep he is. Thank you for your open mindedness. I think it is taking a step further to realizing our potiental as a species.

Thank you, but I guess my little rant is what got me to first notice how many batshit crazy feminists there are out there. I mean, it's common knowledge to most transsexuals that there are absurd feminists because of books like Janice Raymond's 'The Transsexual Empire' and events like the Michigan Womyns' Music Festival (a women only event that specifically excludes trans women). You can find blog after blog after blog of self-described radical feminists piling on the hate for transsexuals. So seeing hostility from there doesn't surprise me a bit.

What does alarm me is when we see a lot of transsexual feminists or transsexual friendly feminists, who take all the hateful attitudes of feminism, take out the hatred of transsexuals, and then claim they're a whole new branch of feminism. The similiarities alarm the fuck out of me!

-Both groups are very hostile towards men (and while some within both groups are open about that hostility, others claim no hostility and can't understand why anyone would think otherwise).

-Both groups talk about rape a lot. If that was it, I'd be more understanding. The Steubenville case deserves to be talked about and Todd Akin deserves to be mocked. But they expand the term 'rape' to the point that it can mean everything and nothing simultanously.

-Both groups chase away people who would otherwise be allies. The video on page one; remember that? It was in response to a Warren Farrel speech. He was so supportive of National Organization of Women that he was actually on their board. While he still identifies as a feminist, he also now describes himself as a masculinist. That's when shit hit the fan and he went from being an ally to being the enemy. You have to be 100% on their side or you are the enemy, a trait that is alarmingly familiar to George W. Bush foreign policy (remember him saying "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists).

-Not even attempting to find common ground in a disagreement or debate. I'm the exact opposite on this, or I try to be. When I interact with people, especially online, I generally pre suppose good intent. It's a big part of what I picked up from reading "How to Win Friends and Infuence People." The first chapter went on to describe evil people throug history from Al Capone to Hitler to Pol Pot and a common thread in all of them is that they all saw themselves as good people. Pretty much everyone sees them as good, so the differences between one person and the next aren't about 'good' and 'bad' but it's about a difference in perspective. I want to understand that different perspective, especially if I'm in an argument with someone. They don't seem interested in any perspective other than their own, even if they have the same opinion on some topics.

It's almost like seeing the matrix for the first time. They were always there, they were always crazy and I went along with them for a long time because I didn't pay attention to them. Now that they're hurting me and people I care about, I notice.

(April 25, 2013 at 1:54 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: When i spoke of unity is more unity in vision not in philosophy. Basically we all should be unified in forward progression and improving our technology, social structure, and knowledge. Forget monetary profit and other pointless destructive things.

Monetary profit is a reason for some to invest in progression, 'pointlessly destructive things' like war advance progression.

Unification is of one mind... it's suffers from a lack of diversity. While one technology might go 'forward' quickly with a unified vision: all of the various technologies that would be produced in the hodge-podge we have today would no longer be developed (anywhere near so quickly).

I'm against unity (the becoming of one unit), because I'm aware of the strength of diversified unit[s]. If one unit would be destroyed handily by an external force, a different unit might well survive that same assault.

(April 25, 2013 at 9:29 am)TaraJo Wrote:

(April 25, 2013 at 1:54 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: I Think you have a unigue out look on this. Reverse Sexism is definatly and issue and thank you reconizing that. IT is true women do have it bad in some situations. I believe where the worse misandry and male discrimnation occurs is with in the legal system. Where a man is torn apart like the poor sheep he is. Thank you for your open mindedness. I think it is taking a step further to realizing our potiental as a species.

Thank you, but I guess my little rant is what got me to first notice how many batshit crazy feminists there are out there. I mean, it's common knowledge to most transsexuals that there are absurd feminists because of books like Janice Raymond's 'The Transsexual Empire' and events like the Michigan Womyns' Music Festival (a women only event that specifically excludes trans women). You can find blog after blog after blog of self-described radical feminists piling on the hate for transsexuals. So seeing hostility from there doesn't surprise me a bit.

What does alarm me is when we see a lot of transsexual feminists or transsexual friendly feminists, who take all the hateful attitudes of feminism, take out the hatred of transsexuals, and then claim they're a whole new branch of feminism. The similiarities alarm the fuck out of me!

-Both groups are very hostile towards men (and while some within both groups are open about that hostility, others claim no hostility and can't understand why anyone would think otherwise).

-Both groups talk about rape a lot. If that was it, I'd be more understanding. The Steubenville case deserves to be talked about and Todd Akin deserves to be mocked. But they expand the term 'rape' to the point that it can mean everything and nothing simultanously.

-Both groups chase away people who would otherwise be allies. The video on page one; remember that? It was in response to a Warren Farrel speech. He was so supportive of National Organization of Women that he was actually on their board. While he still identifies as a feminist, he also now describes himself as a masculinist. That's when shit hit the fan and he went from being an ally to being the enemy. You have to be 100% on their side or you are the enemy, a trait that is alarmingly familiar to George W. Bush foreign policy (remember him saying "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists).

-Not even attempting to find common ground in a disagreement or debate. I'm the exact opposite on this, or I try to be. When I interact with people, especially online, I generally pre suppose good intent. It's a big part of what I picked up from reading "How to Win Friends and Infuence People." The first chapter went on to describe evil people throug history from Al Capone to Hitler to Pol Pot and a common thread in all of them is that they all saw themselves as good people. Pretty much everyone sees them as good, so the differences between one person and the next aren't about 'good' and 'bad' but it's about a difference in perspective. I want to understand that different perspective, especially if I'm in an argument with someone. They don't seem interested in any perspective other than their own, even if they have the same opinion on some topics.

It's almost like seeing the matrix for the first time. They were always there, they were always crazy and I went along with them for a long time because I didn't pay attention to them. Now that they're hurting me and people I care about, I notice.

That is true I really do not know why that is such. But humans are tribal creatures and thus creates systems like that. I hope rationality and reason win out.

One of the feminazis here on the last page expressed amazement at the concept that women should be mindful of what men are attracted to. That amazement alone shows how far off course society has gone. In nature there are trends, so saying that everybody has different tastes is redundant in the face of overwhelming preference. Most men are not attracted to women who shave their heads, act like men, and are belligerent. Sure, there are a few "special" people who are, but most aren't. It is very important for women to be feminine, to act like women, and exude the attributes of a woman. Trying to blur roles isn't clever. Animals know how nature works, they know it instinctively. Feminism is just bollocks and it is very damaging to women.

(April 29, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Macky Avelli Wrote: It is very important for women to be feminine, to act like women, and exude the attributes of a woman.

Why is that? And pray tell, what is appropriate behavior for a woman?

Quote:Trying to blur roles isn't clever.

Trying to say that it's black and white is idiotic.

Quote:Animals know how nature works, they know it instinctively.

Now this is a truly idiotic statement. Sure, you can take examples from other species, if you want. But remember what humans do is natural for humans, not necessarily for others. Tell me, what species are example of perfect femininity? The Emperor Penguin; the male guards the egg through the long winter, while the female is out at sea? Or the seahorse, the male carries and guards the eggs until they hatch? Then we have the family of ducks (and many other birds) were the male is the extravagant one and the female usually and obscure brown tone? Or some insect females who eat their mate after sex?

Quote:Feminism is just bollocks and it is very damaging to women.

Now go back to your kitchen to your gal, who's a decent girl and won't talk back to you.


Oh right, you don't have one, do you?

Are feminine women like those tv moms from the 50's? Because I don't really want to date anyone like that. They're really fucking boring.