Marcal91 said:
Have you read what I wrote, or did you just see the "50/50" and commented that?
I always read comments fully before answering.
I don't have the data, I can't tell you if it should be 50/50 with equal opportunity, NOR DO I CLAIM IT SHOULD BE, which I said before. I'm not gonna argue for or against that 50/50 number, because I don't have enough information to make a claim either way, and I like to admit when I lack the knowledge about something. As I said before, go ask them why they think it should be a 50/50, I can't tell you.
I was not speaking about you specifically, I was speaking about feminists and why I disagree with them, and what distinguishes me with them.
You're telling me that the vast majority of people that used ALM were not racist? I KNOW, I just told you I used it myself. That's the entire point of a dogwhistle. Anyway, don't mischaracterize the BLM protests as if all of it were like that, when that's actually a very small minority of it. Any sufficiently large movement will have bad actors, and, as I said before, people get mistreated, and take it as an excuse to mistreat others, and that's not okay, no matter in which side they're on, but they were a very small portion of the protests (not saying the protests were peaceful, just that the vast majority were looking for equality).
The vast majority were pushing for an anti-white conspiracy theory, systemic racism, which postulates that the entire society is built in a way that benefits white people, i.e. white people control institutions and conspire, consciously or not, to prevent non-whites from achieving their highest potential. It sounds a lot like antisemitic conspiracy theories that accuse Jews of controlling and running institutions in a way that benefits their group over others.
You didn't tell me what your reason for saying that was, so I asked. Anyway, the three countries you've mentioned are currently ruled by their right-wing parties.
LOL, Macron is center-left in its policies, like precedent presidents (even if they presented as right-wing, like Sarkozy with his karsher) and the UK was ruled by cuckservatives that brought hundreds of thousands of immigrants from outside of Europe when they governed, and is now literally governed by the left. Germany is ruled by the left and the new government will probably some sort of coalition between the center-right and the left. It's Angela Merkel from the CDU that brought in millions of migrants during the refugee crisis, that's the kind of "right" we are speaking about.
You're going to have to tell me your definition of socialism, because it's clearly not the common one I'm used to (the means of producing and distributing goods being owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy), because that is not happening, and while you're at it give me your definition of fascism, so we can be on the same page about what we're actually talking about. And I hope you have sources of them putting people in prison for criticizing immigration, because I couldn't find anything about that.
I admit that I exaggerate when I say those countries are socialist, but they approach themselves to that system, by taxing heavily people, particularly rich people and legacies, to redistribute it. It's shocking how generous France is with anybody for any small reason.
I don't keep sources of such things and the mainstream media doesn't speak about it. We can be thankful to have X that permits us to see reality and if something is a fake news on a post that accumulated lots of views, there is always a Note to warn users. And it warns us in our notifications if we liked the post.
I suggest you to watch Tommy Robinson's documentary. I remember for example a perquisition had been made to a young woman's home, with her phone searched through by police for holding a sign "foreign rapists out". And some media twisted it to make it seem like she said "foreigners, rapists, out" (it makes more sense in how you can twist that in French).
Honestly, I don't know why I expected anything, I was hoping for at least a few arguments I can engage with, maybe even agree with. My intention was too watch it with an open mind, and if I thought of a rebuttal, I'd write it here. I was even going to blame feminism, because of something you said earlier about you watching it saying "I know she's racist, sexist, homophobic, I know she's hateful, racist, sexist..." and at the moment I didn't catch how damming that is for feminists and liberals, because that is what they do teach you, to not listen to bigots without telling you a reason why besides that they're bigots, so if you ever do listen to them, you're just unprepared to challenge their rhetoric. But it just limits itself to pointing a finger to perceived hypocrisy and saying "curious". Anyway:
1st story is just companies engaging in the feminist version of rainbow capitalism, just doing what they think will get them the most money, and in 2018 that was presenting a feminist façade, I don't think they represent feminism, they just want to give the appearance of feminism, and they don't really know what it is. I do think the "girls are smarter" t-shirt should have been recalled and put back into shelves with a "than you think" underneath it, and there you have it, an empowering feminist message without demeaning anyone. "Why weren't feminists screaming from the rooftops about it"? Well, because not removing them is not anti-feminist, doesn't mean they agree, just not the kind of thing they scream about, I don't think it's hipocritical to not complain about things that aren't related to your fight. Now it would be different if they were defending the act, but just not saying anything? Why would you expect them to say anything?
Except they removed it from their stores because people complained. It's not just what they think will give them the most money, it's what people think. If it was just a random woman and this sentiment wasn't shared among the population, they would have given the same kind of response as for the "boys will be boys" shirt. It's a reflection of the state of mentalities of individuals.
The point about feminists not making a big fuss about it is that they constantly claim to be for gender equality and that feminism is about gender equality, yet when you have a female supremacist message on a shirt sold by a major store, they pretend it doesn't exist. Yet if there was a shirt "boys are smarter", there would have been manifestations, boycotts, and feminists speaking about it on social media.
2nd story opens with a post saying they'd laugh if it was the other way around. Thet are psychos, and I say this as someone who hates cheaters from the bottom of my soul, they can fucking rot in hell, and I think it should be considered a misdemeanor. But this doesn't seem anti-man, just anti-cheaters, and I've seen the exact same sentiment when it's a woman who cheats.
I agree with you on that, but I think some points she makes still holds, as for example the news headline not wanting to mention rape. And the second story opens with comments justifying misandric sexual violence. But yeah, probably just psychos.
3rd story is the first one we can actually agree on, and it gets worse than that, I remember really angry at an article about a female teacher having sex with her underage student (I think he was 14, but I might be wrong), and the article went out of it's way to avoid stating that she was a pedophile, a predator, a rapist, or anything of the short. I remember my feminist friend at the time joking that "women can do whatever men can, do they think we can't be predators?". Still, it's still media companies media companies doing what they thought best for their bottom line, and in 2018 saying anything negative against women was bad optics. An overcompensation? Absolutely, but it's not going to convince me that gender equality (again, of opportunity) is not worth fighting for, it's not even going to convince me that the feminist movement is anti-man. Comments are unhinged, but it is Facebook, so I expect unhinged, plus given al the "lol"s they're likely joking. And hey, they do call it rape, the whole point of that post was to correct the article to call it rape. If the articles (the one in the video and the one I mentioned) did call those women rapists and mainstream feminists complained about that, that'd be a different story.
So you justify it not mentioning rape by "overcompensation" ?? How the f* is that justifiable ?
Except you don't see the broader picture, you're here saying "this single point alone won't change my belief about feminism". It never worked like that for me either.
You're minimizing the seriousness of the comments, when you have women saying they should just be able to go around and rape men I don't see any joke. Where is the joke ? I am still searching for it. Would you still minimize it if it were men saying they should be able to go around and rape women like they want because of the social climate ??
4th story, from what Sydney herself said in the video, the female senator never said anything about all men being rapists LOL she just said the pepper spray was necessary to stop men from raping (meaning stopping men who are rapists from doing so, taking it to mean "all men are rapists and need to be stopped" is a huge strawman. Even in the interviews she never refers to all men, just enough to warrant measures).
Literally Sydney said the opposite lmao. She showed a video of her saying "Men cannot control themselves", implying all men are potential rapists that cannot control what they do to women. She also says "Men behave like morons and pigs". Imagine one second saying similar things about women ??? It's crazy that you distort reality so much.
And saying it is necessary to stop men from raping implies that men are rapists. If she was referring to rapists only, she would have said to stop rapists from raping. Imagine I say (I do not think it but I am using it as an example) "being clear about your intentions is necessary to stop women from being sluts". Here, am I referring to female sluts only, or to all women as being sluts ?
It's crazy funny that you speak about strawmen because you are literally making one. At no point in the video Sydney says that the politicians said that all men were rapists and needed to be stopped. She showed the videos where she says disgusting misandric things about men being pigs and whatnot.
The comment from the dude telling her to not sleep with men is unhinged, and it is sexist. I'm not gonna say he should resign for it, but only because senators have gotten away with worse.
She is right when she says feminism does not exist to help men, that's just not it's purpose, I wish it was, but it's not. That doesn't mean it's purpose is to attack men, though.
Thanks for proving my point that feminism isn't about equality, they are hypocrites when they say it is. If it was, they would also fight in areas where men are disadvantaged. And what Sydney says about men's group defending men and feminist screaming that they are sexist is definitely true, and I know it for a fact as I was deep into the feminist movement.
You've never dated men, and it shows.
So ? How does that make me less legitimate lmao.
I'm not one to say sweeping statements lile "men are trash", specially since I am one, but, in the context of dating and flirting/being flirted on (which is clearly the context of that post), a huge number of men are trash. Not all men, of course, I don't think it's even most men in general, but a huge number of men in the dating market.
I'm not saying the opposite
Not saying women aren't awful as well, plenty of golddiggers that want you for your money (or just for you to pay for their fancy meal), plenty of misandrists, plenty of girls that don't want to be there and just want to make someone jealous, and plenty of trash in general, but not in a way that makes me feel unsafe, just... used.
I understand and agree.
But some men have made me feel unsafe, other men made me feel unsafe AND used. And some men were good and respectful, just not looking for something long term. There is a reason why Grindr immediately became a hook-up app instead of a dating app, and that is because it's populated by men.
Are you really comparing straight men to gay men ? Yes, men in general look more for short-term relationships but it's not comparable at all. Grindr is well-known for being an app for sex, not serious relationships. Same for Tinder. Other apps are well-known for serious relationships. Compare what is comparable.
That is also the reason I'm 99% sure I'll end up with a woman. And before you say it's because they're gay, let me tell you I've bonded with some of the women I've dated over the struggle of dating men, let me tell you it's pretty much the same experience.
Too late lol. I won't comment on the generalizations you make over the shared sentiments of a few women you dated.
One apt comparison that stuck with me was that "dating women is a desert, dating men is a swamp. In both cases you will struggle to find drinkable water, but for vastly different reasons", and having dated both, man if it doesn't feel true some times.
I don't think this is reflective of men (or women) in general, keep in mind the dating market is self-selecting, those who are good will exit it swiftly, and all that's left is the trash, so you'll have to swim through it if you're trying to find gold.
And here we go justifying anti-male hate. Why did I expect that from a leftist. Are women trash ? Please tell me. Women are trash. Yes or no ? According to your reasoning, it's perfectly justified to say women are trash, because all that's left is trash.
Don't be offended by it, if you're not like that you shouldn't feel called out,
*Says something highly misandric to a man* "Eh, why do you feel called out ???? It's not directed at you".
maybe you're the gold someone else is swimming through the trash to find, but understand there is a lot of trash around you, so please understand when we're a little wary when dating men. (I'm also wary when dating women, just in different ways, for first dates I do either cheap escapades or, if it must be a restaurant, I communicate my expectation to split the bill beforehand)
I totally agree with you on that, but there's a difference between having a misandric rhethoric, stating men are trash and being wary of the people you date.
Finally, I'm going to need you to explain to me how that post is misandrist rethoric, the interpretation I get is we should stop teaching women that men are trash, or we shouldn't be surprised if they repeat what they have been taught.
This post is highly misandric because those women are trying to justify their anti-male hatred, why it's totally okay for them to denigrate men, instead of just admitting they are assholes that hate men. Imagine if I live in a family where women tell me to be wary of other women because they supposedly are sluts, only going after me for my money, then would it be misogyny for me to say women are trash, yes or no ?
