RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs

RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Awareness -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 2:54:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I was going on the assumption that feminists are basically unified behind some central tenets and self-identifying outward from that place. They are: gender equality. Citation required. There's no evidence to suggest that is true.

Awareness -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 3:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: then who is to say what the principles of today's feminism is? Who is to say that respectmen's or Awareness' view of who a feminist is today is any more wrong or right than Peon's? I guess the majority of those who identify as feminists, who generally don't support the batshit crazy ones, because...well they're batshit crazy. I mean come on, who gets to say just what exactly are the principles of modern American conservatism? Is it Trump? Bachman? Palin? Limbaugh? Beck? Describing the views of the crazy fringe as representative of mainstream feminism is as valid as saying those fruitcakes represent conservatism. Every mass movement has it's idiots, extremists, and publicity seeking blowhards. You would define conservatism by its impact in the legislative and social spheres. And indeed, the left does an awful lot of that. Constant references to conservatives attempting to control women's choices by not insisting that health insurers pay for their shit is just one example. Similarly, feminism can only be defined by its impact in the legislative and social spheres (since feminists are apparently unable to define feminism themselves). On that basis, feminism is a movement based on the aggrandizement of middle-class white women through the assertion that white men are oppressive, unlovable swine who hate women and have oppressed them as a class. Consequently, much legislation must be passed to rectify this and white men must be vilified because being white and male means you're inherently evil, defective and/or a cunt. So, yeah. The fruitcakes ARE feminism. The lunatic lesbian feminist fringe just wants to kill male babies.

Lucylastic -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 3:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The misogynists just don't want to admit or they are too fucking thick to realise that their attitudes is exactly that! It's the misogynists who are totalitarians. It's the misogynists who show extreme controlling behaviour. It's the misogynists who uses violence against others who disagree. It's the misogynists who bans others from universities from having different opinions. It's the misogynists who will try to disturb and stop any conference or speech that isn't kowtowing their repulsive ideology. The misogynists just don't want to admit it that they are the real fucking fascists. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... I have extreme passionate hate for people on the right for these behaviours that I just mentioned above. These people are fucking deranged. They are the ruination of western civilization. The west wont remain the best for long with misogynistsists around shitting all over the place as they enforce privileges for men and majority groups and totally discriminating the fuck out of white women. misogynistsists fuckwit freaks shout the loudest about anti feminism, and racism, but total fucking irony, more than anything, it's them who are the most sexist and racist as they go on with their anti female hating bigoted bullshit. Blaming females for all the woes in the world. Blaming one demographic of people based on gender and race for all the woes in the world is nothing more than extreme hate. These people are repulsive, disgusting, hypocritical, controlling, lying ,dirtbags that should get laughed at out of existence. Wow, damaged much? White women are essentially the most privileged, over-indulged, spoilt girl-children in the world. And yet, you still find things to whine about. Unbelievable. As I mentioned in an later post, no, this was one of Nicks posts with the "genders" and terms(Feminism and Misogynist replaced.). [:D]

Termyn8or -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 3:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: and infringing upon their right to create and enjoy such clubs is unconstitutional Under which constitution? The US constitution. Freedom of assembly and freedom of association. Under freedom of association people can form clubs which can administer themselves for the benefit of the members. Attempting to prevent men from creating male-only clubs is a violation of this constitutional right. Face it. There are just some places men want to be free of women. It's only damaged women who have a problem with this. I bet the last sentence struck a nerve with some. Like the middle class, normal Women are becoming less in number. Some are damaged, not treated right as a baby, raised wrong. Maybe druggie Parents. All kinds of shit can happen to them. Also there are ones with this sense of entitlement that you just want to cut up with a chainsaw and throw in the garbage. Damaged can mean two almost opposite things, entitled or pissed off they didn't get a fair shake in life. Both blame Men. In a way they are right because quite honestly we still got the real power. If someone were to remove Women's right to vote, who do you think it would be ? Orientals ? Nope, White Men. The White males who run this world are immature and stupid, and killing the golden goose for the quarterly report. But an old guy in the country can tell you. Women are equal but they need to know their place. Their place does NOT mean subserivant, it means to be in an equitable arrangement of life's duties and so forth. In the old days, a Man and Woman got married. They fuck. Well the tits are on the Woman so therefore she must feed the kid because there is no Enfamil or any of that. As a result she is not out planting crops n shit, she is taking care of the kid(s). They need frequent feeding, and later of course she cooks and the breastfeeding is over. But she is still contending with the day to day needs of the kids. Meantime the Man is outside contemplating where to plant what, thinking ahead. His results might not happen for six months but he has to forsee these things. Got his son out there and "OK, we are going to plant the corn over there, the wheat on the right and our personal garden over here..." knowing there will be no results for months. The Woman more wants to see things right now. "My babies are hungry now". This has led to a split in how males and females think. There is really nothing wrong with that, they complemented each other. A Man's home was his castle, but his olady was the Queen so therefore it was also her castle. A reasonable Man reasons, and so does a good Woman. It surprises me how much problems people make for themselves. Bitches with attitudes, and I mean both genders. It is not that hard to get along if you don't cop an attitude. If you're Man enough you can deflate any argument, unless she caught you cheating on her. If you did that then GTFO and fast. There are knives in that kitchen ! Other than that you should be able to handle it. Let her bitch and then sit her down and ask about it. Actually you probably DID do something wrong, but they make it a bitch to figure out what it is. Oh well. If you don't like it don't get one. T^T

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 4:23:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I was going on the assumption that feminists are basically unified behind some central tenets and self-identifying outward from that place. They are: gender equality. Citation required. There's no evidence to suggest that is true. That's the one central thread that's run through the bulk of what feminism is. That's why all the dictionaries define feminism in terms of gender equality. What kind of citation would you want were we to be talking, say, about socialism or conservatism?

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 4:34:37 PM)
quote: If there isn't some sort of leadership within the movement, then I would have to retract my earlier post. I was going on the assumption that feminists are basically unified behind some central tenets and self-identifying outward from that place. If that's not the case, then this has only strengthened my feeling in the post above that any one definition of feminist is no better than another. Etc ... I see the way you're going with your reasoning, Kaliko ... but I think you still hold the assumption that feminism is necessarily something radical, something that involves fringe -ish political activity and that this must involve 'prominent philosophers' and/or notable activists. But why see it this way? We don't, for instance, ask the same of conservatives, liberals or socialists, do we? There are plenty of people who are proud to call themselves conservatives, liberals or socialists, without once having read any of the prominent philosophers of their favoured 'ism' and who are quite clear that they can't stand many of the people who are considered the leading representatives of that ism in the country. Yet, despite this, few people are going to say ''conservatism', 'socialism' and 'liberalism' don't mean anything much - we can attribute to those 'isms' whatever we want'.

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 4:39:57 PM)
quote: You would define conservatism by its impact in the legislative and social spheres. You couldn't logically define conservatism by its impact on the legislative and social spheres without first knowing what sort of people and what sort of 'ism' it is whose impact you want to judge. We're back in 'feminism is what feminists do' territory.

Nnanji -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 4:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: You would define conservatism by its impact in the legislative and social spheres. You couldn't logically define conservatism by its impact on the legislative and social spheres without first knowing what sort of people and what sort of 'ism' it is whose impact you want to judge. We're back in 'feminism is what feminists do' territory. As a lay person in feminism, all I can do is look at the works of feminists. It's pretty much the same regarding astronauts, ship captains, marine corp snipers and dog groomers. While I see the weaknesses, i also see it's a reasonable approach to knowing something, the fruits of the labors so to speak. In that regard I'm reminded of when the president of Harvard mentioned that on average males and females had the same average IQ. Yet, males tended to be less stable and within the average tended to have more morons and more geniuses and perhaps that was why there tended to be more male science and math professors. Well, apparently that drove several female professors to tears and the Harvard president was forced to resign his job under pressure from feminists. I guess, judging by those fruits, gender equity is pretty subservient to dogmatic mythology.

Awareness -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 5:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I was going on the assumption that feminists are basically unified behind some central tenets and self-identifying outward from that place. They are: gender equality. Citation required. There's no evidence to suggest that is true. That's the one central thread that's run through the bulk of what feminism is. That's why all the dictionaries define feminism in terms of gender equality. Feminist advocacy is not found in a dictionary, it's found in the efforts of feminist groups to manipulate either the legislative or social spheres. You might want to magically wish away all those feminists who express their man-hating in such a fashion but wishing doesn't make them vanish. quote: What kind of citation would you want were we to be talking, say, about socialism or conservatism? Socialists make no bones about the paradigm under which they operate and the view they have. They can trace their ideology back to Marx and Engels and the commonality of the class struggle is embedded in the socialist narrative. Conservatism doesn't actually exist. It's largely a labeling exercise by the left so they can delude themselves into believing they have a bogeyman to fight against. Consequently, the left defines conservatism as anyone who opposes their own views. This ranges from anyone who believes in capitalism on the one hand (because the left still earnestly believes in a socialist utopia) to anyone who doesn't support the victim-hood narrative which dominates the twitter activism of feminists and social justice warriors whose entire raison d'être is engaging in idiotic hand-wringing about all the oppressed minorities in the world from Muslims (yes, social justice warriors really ARE that stupid) to so-called transgender individuals, to women in third world countries about whom they do not give a fuck but who they readily use as fodder for their narrative. Part of the problem with the right is that they've allowed the left to label them in this fashion. Conservatism doesn't exist as a central ideology with an underlying philosophy, it's simply a rote definition by the left which constantly defines its own activities as 'progressive'. Consequently, 'conservative' is the automatically chosen antonym of that self-appointed evaluation and the right has been foolish enough to fall into that trap. Basically, anyone who opposes the left is "conservative", despite how phenomenally stupid that kind of reasoning actually is. In simple point of fact, conservatives are effectively a lumping together of traditionalists - who don't like change - with thinkers who insist the left actually support some of its contentions with evidence instead of simply asserting truth based upon 'feelings'. For example, the following statements are anathema to the left, despite them having no evidence to counter them: * Muslims are not an oppressed minority and their religion is incredibly violent. Islam's Holy Book is filled with invocations to murder and do harm. * There is no evidence whatsoever that transgenderism is anything other than a mental dysfunction. * Men and women both profited from the social contract and women were not an oppressed class. Anyone who supports such views is deemed 'conservative' - or worse - by the left, yet the left seems manifestly unable to oppose those views with logic and reason, preferring instead to engage in censorship and social approbriation as mechanisms for controlling both the dialogue and the social sphere. If the left wants to advocate for change, it needs to make better arguments. The fact that the left constantly appeals to emotions is a clear sign that much of its dogma is comprehensive horseshit. When it comes to feminism, the recent running away from responsibility by feminists such as yourself is a relatively new development. Previously feminists were loud and proud, however as it's become increasingly clear that much of the feminist advocacy is not about gender equality but simply aggrandisement for women, those formerly loud and proud feminists have suddenly decided that all that self-aggrandisement is being performed by the "lunatic fringe". Which, of course, is fucking nonsense. Fringe lunatics don't get to influence legislation. Fringe lunatics don't get to set the national conversation and promulgate untruths about "rape culture", "the gender pay gap" and "toxic masculinity". It's the mainstream feminists which do that. And just as they're being called on their bullshit, they - like you - suddenly run into hiding and claim they have nothing to do with all the anti-male legislation and public discourse in which they've been engaging. No, that's not them... it's those "radicals". Horseshit. Mainstream feminism has been painting men as the bogeyman and influencing legislation around domestic violence and family courts for decades. And it's mainstream feminists who promulgate ridiculous narratives in which everything men do is an implicit attack on their choices - despite doing exactly the same thing themselves. You're either monumentally intellectually dishonest or a fucking moron. There's no middle ground here. It's impossible to shut your eyes to the untruths put forward in the feminist narrative which - despite claiming women are every bit men's equal - keep painting men as perpetrators and women as victims. Which claim men have advantages but women need cash. Which keep looking up at the corporate boardroom and bitching about the glass ceiling but refuse to look down at the janitorial staff and homeless and risk being confronted with the reality of the glass floor.

Nnanji -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 5:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I was going on the assumption that feminists are basically unified behind some central tenets and self-identifying outward from that place. They are: gender equality. Citation required. There's no evidence to suggest that is true. That's the one central thread that's run through the bulk of what feminism is. That's why all the dictionaries define feminism in terms of gender equality. Feminist advocacy is not found in a dictionary, it's found in the efforts of feminist groups to manipulate either the legislative or social spheres. You might want to magically wish away all those feminists who express their man-hating in such a fashion but wishing doesn't make them vanish. quote: What kind of citation would you want were we to be talking, say, about socialism or conservatism? Socialists make no bones about the paradigm under which they operate and the view they have. They can trace their ideology back to Marx and Engels and the commonality of the class struggle is embedded in the socialist narrative. Conservatism doesn't actually exist. It's largely a labeling exercise by the left so they can delude themselves into believing they have a bogeyman to fight against. Consequently, the left defines conservatism as anyone who opposes their own views. This ranges from anyone who believes in capitalism on the one hand (because the left still earnestly believes in a socialist utopia) to anyone who doesn't support the victim-hood narrative which dominates the twitter activism of feminists and social justice warriors whose entire raison d'être is engaging in idiotic hand-wringing about all the oppressed minorities in the world from Muslims (yes, social justice warriors really ARE that stupid) to so-called transgender individuals, to women in third world countries about whom they do not give a fuck but who they readily use as fodder for their narrative. Part of the problem with the right is that they've allowed the left to label them in this fashion. Conservatism doesn't exist as a central ideology with an underlying philosophy, it's simply a rote definition by the left which constantly defines its own activities as 'progressive'. Consequently, 'conservative' is the automatically chosen antonym of that self-appointed evaluation and the right has been foolish enough to fall into that trap. Basically, anyone who opposes the left is "conservative", despite how phenomenally stupid that kind of reasoning actually is. In simple point of fact, conservatives are effectively a lumping together of traditionalists - who don't like change - with thinkers who insist the left actually support some of its contentions with evidence instead of simply asserting truth based upon 'feelings'. For example, the following statements are anathema to the left, despite them having no evidence to counter them: * Muslims are not an oppressed minority and their religion is incredibly violent. Islam's Holy Book is filled with invocations to murder and do harm. * There is no evidence whatsoever that transgenderism is anything other than a mental dysfunction. * Men and women both profited from the social contract and women were not an oppressed class. Anyone who supports such views is deemed 'conservative' - or worse - by the left, yet the left seems manifestly unable to oppose those views with logic and reason, preferring instead to engage in censorship and social approbriation as mechanisms for controlling both the dialogue and the social sphere. If the left wants to advocate for change, it needs to make better arguments. The fact that the left constantly appeals to emotions is a clear sign that much of its dogma is comprehensive horseshit. When it comes to feminism, the recent running away from responsibility by feminists such as yourself is a relatively new development. Previously feminists were loud and proud, however as it's become increasingly clear that much of the feminist advocacy is not about gender equality but simply aggrandisement for women, those formerly loud and proud feminists have suddenly decided that all that self-aggrandisement is being performed by the "lunatic fringe". Which, of course, is fucking nonsense. Fringe lunatics don't get to influence legislation. Fringe lunatics don't get to set the national conversation and promulgate untruths about "rape culture", "the gender pay gap" and "toxic masculinity". It's the mainstream feminists which do that. And just as they're being called on their bullshit, they - like you - suddenly run into hiding and claim they have nothing to do with all the anti-male legislation and public discourse in which they've been engaging. No, that's not them... it's those "radicals". Horseshit. Mainstream feminism has been painting men as the bogeyman and influencing legislation around domestic violence and family courts for decades. And it's mainstream feminists who promulgate ridiculous narratives in which everything men do is an implicit attack on their choices - despite doing exactly the same thing themselves. You're either monumentally intellectually dishonest or a fucking moron. There's no middle ground here. It's impossible to shut your eyes to the untruths put forward in the feminist narrative which - despite claiming women are every bit men's equal - keep painting men as perpetrators and women as victims. Which claim men have advantages but women need cash. Which keep looking up at the corporate boardroom and bitching about the glass ceiling but refuse to look down at the janitorial staff and homeless and risk being confronted with the reality of the glass floor. Good post

PeonForHer -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 5:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Feminist advocacy is not found in a dictionary, it's found in the efforts of feminist groups to manipulate either the legislative or social spheres. You might want to magically wish away all those feminists who express their man-hating in such a fashion but wishing doesn't make them vanish. No. It's you who's doing the magical wishing here, Awareness. The question is still begged, though this time re 'feminist groups' rather than plain 'feminists'. How do you know which efforts of which kind of people, when you look at the 'efforts of feminist groups'? quote: Conservatism doesn't actually exist. It's largely a labeling exercise by the left so they can delude themselves into believing they have a bogeyman to fight against. Consequently, the left defines conservatism as anyone who opposes their own views. This ranges from anyone who believes in capitalism on the one hand (because the left still earnestly believes in a socialist utopia) to anyone who doesn't support the victim-hood narrative which dominates the twitter activism of feminists and social justice warriors whose entire raison d'être is engaging in idiotic hand-wringing about all the oppressed minorities in the world from Muslims (yes, social justice warriors really ARE that stupid) to so-called transgender individuals, to women in third world countries about whom they do not give a fuck but who they readily use as fodder for their narrative. That's simply wrong in parts and deranged in others. 'Conservatism' is not a term that is shunned by the people who call themselves 'conservative'. These have existed, and have used that term, since Edmund Burke. There are philosophers of conservatism today who are highly regarded. And you're using the word incorrectly. Conservatism favours tradition over novelty, is cautious about change, assume society to be 'organic' in the sense that if you do radical things to it, the 'body' is in danger of serious injury or even death. Here's an outline by Stanford: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ quote: " Part of the problem with the right is that they've allowed the left to label them in this fashion. Conservatism doesn't exist as a central ideology with an underlying philosophy, it's simply a rote definition by the left which constantly defines its own activities as 'progressive'. Consequently, 'conservative' is the automatically chosen antonym of that self-appointed evaluation and the right has been foolish enough to fall into that trap. This is wrong and/or grossly out of proportion. You haven't read up on this subject, you don't know anything about it, and it shows. quote: You're either monumentally intellectually dishonest or a fucking moron. There's no middle ground here. You're blustering. This pretence of impatient fury at my 'lack of intellectual honesty' is wasted on me and, I have to say, becoming just too tiresome for me to want to engage with it any more. You simply don't know what you're talking about here, Awareness. You need to go away and actually learn.

Awareness -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 6:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer No. It's you who's doing the magical wishing here, Awareness. The question is still begged, though this time re 'feminist groups' rather than plain 'feminists'. How do you know which efforts of which kind of people, when you look at the 'efforts of feminist groups'? This is a question expressed so poorly even I can't fathom what you're actually trying to say. Try again and this time, for God's sake, construct a coherent sentence. quote: That's simply wrong in parts and deranged in others. 'Conservatism' is not a term that is shunned by the people who call themselves 'conservative'. These have existed, and have used that term, since Edmund Burke. Bullshit. Conservatism is a retrospective label applied to Burke, not a self-appellation. Again, this is simple labeling by the left, nothing more. quote: There are philosophers of conservatism today who are highly regarded. Again, as labelled by the left. Honestly, you're such a pedestrian thinker, this is positively fucking painful. quote: And you're using the word incorrectly. Conservatism favours tradition over novelty, is cautious about change, assume society to be 'organic' in the sense that if you do radical things to it, the 'body' is in danger of serious injury or even death. Here's an outline by Stanford: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ Christ, do you have any fucking idea how bad you are at this? The link you sent acknowledges that conservatism isn't regarded as an ideology or philosophy, which pretty much supports my contention that it's a labelling exercise by the left in which every political thought has to be stuffed into one of two boxes marked "conservative" or "liberal". quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness: " Part of the problem with the right is that they've allowed the left to label them in this fashion. Conservatism doesn't exist as a central ideology with an underlying philosophy, it's simply a rote definition by the left which constantly defines its own activities as 'progressive'. Consequently, 'conservative' is the automatically chosen antonym of that self-appointed evaluation and the right has been foolish enough to fall into that trap. quote: This is wrong and/or grossly out of proportion. You haven't read up on this subject, you don't know anything about it, and it shows. No, I'm afraid I'm quite right and you really REALLY are just a regurgitation machine. It's fascinating to watch your clear inability to think for yourself dominate every aspect of your rather workmanlike attempts to argue with others. Your view of conservatism is a retroactive labeling of an opposing political view based upon the beliefs of leftist thinkers. There is no "philosophy of conservatism", there is no "ideology of conservatism", all such constructions are retroactive nonsense. It's a product of the insane belief that the entirety of human political thought exists on a scale between liberal and conservative. As I already pointed out earlier, your notion of conservative is anyone who opposes the 'progressive' agenda of the left. You can't claim anyone in opposition to your view is part of a movement, that - AGAIN - is a simple labeling exercise. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness You're either monumentally intellectually dishonest or a fucking moron. There's no middle ground here. You're blustering. No, I'm being precise and calling you out on being a coward. quote: This pretence of impatient fury at my 'lack of intellectual honesty' is wasted on me and, I have to say, becoming just too tiresome for me to want to engage with it any more. Pffft. You know you're preciously close to having to back up some of your bullshit and because you're incapable of doing so, you're trying to find a way to weasel out of being confronted with your own dishonesty. That's fine dude. I'm used to feminists being unable to backup any of their bullshit with evidence. You're just like all the others. quote: You simply don't know what you're talking about here, Awareness. You need to go away and actually learn. chuckle Physician, heal thyself.

Awareness -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 6:56:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I bet the last sentence struck a nerve with some. Like the middle class, normal Women are becoming less in number. Some are damaged, not treated right as a baby, raised wrong. Maybe druggie Parents. All kinds of shit can happen to them. Also there are ones with this sense of entitlement that you just want to cut up with a chainsaw and throw in the garbage. Look, much as I agree that there are damaged women in the world, I have to say that at no stage do I feel the desire to cut them up with a chainsaw - or indeed any implement. You really need to get a handle on your anger, dude. quote: Damaged can mean two almost opposite things, entitled or pissed off they didn't get a fair shake in life. Both blame Men. In a way they are right because quite honestly we still got the real power. If someone were to remove Women's right to vote, who do you think it would be ? Orientals ? Nope, White Men. Nobody gets a fair shake in life. The universe is not fair. What you'll find though, is that what we get out of life is very much influenced by what we put in. As for women's suffrage... for the most part they got it a few decades after men did and didn't have to go to war to get it. The whining about it by feminists is completely unjustified. quote: The White males who run this world are immature and stupid, and killing the golden goose for the quarterly report. Don't be stupid. Anyone who attains power of that magnitude is not stupid or immature. On the contrary, they're often possessed of insight, ruthlessness and intelligence.

Termyn8or -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/15/2016 7:56:46 PM)
I don't want to cut anyone up with a chainsaw or any other tool. That's called a "figure of speech" in case nobody knew about it. It is a hyperbolic exaggeration of one's disdain for certain things, or people. But the bottom line here Aware, that YOU brought up, is how the hell can we White Men oppress anyone unless we have power over them ? We GAVE Women and minorities power, so therefore it seems logical that we can take it back. How did we enslave those twice as strong ? How did we oppress those who bore our own sons and daughters ? It is a matter of POWER. Not the easiest thing to attain actually but White Men did it and it is in our blood. Ever intimidate anyone ? I have, my Father did. Credible threats. That is all it takes. Usually you do not have to carry them out because people do start thinking "Hmm, this guy might just really mean it". And you can't ask for too much. You rape their olady and leave their kids in a pool of blood no amount of threat will work. No, you cannot just do anything. And really, we could kick the shit out of Russia OR Chia OR, whatever, but not all of them. And if we started shit they would get together and take us down, which is why Exxon is nnot drilling in Russia and China. That's money folks. You know, now it occurs to me that we should not support lines on a map. If china and Russia were broken up into a bunch of smaller countries we could take them one by one. Don't mention this to the fucking government though, they'll probably try to do it. Son-a-bitches have no concept of what it means to play nice with others. Just money money money. Yeah, the White Men Club. I want to find a bar that is not doing well financially and have them do this. Make new signs. No Women unfortunately but that is the way it is. We talk politics, probably even have a fight ow ad then. Nobody calls the cops, no cellphones allowed, in fact they are blocked electronically. Enter at your own risk, just like 1970 or so. And a poker game in the back, in fact a few of them. And none of this stupid fucking holdem shit, jacks or better. REAL poker. Fuck that bullshit the broads play in the churches. And oh yeah, people smoking cigars, blunts, joints, pot pipes and maybe even crack. If a crackhead gets out of hand we bust his head. The rest should be alright. In Ohio it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, fukum. Smoke all you want, anyone calls they get a free trip. Doors are locked and it takes an ID to get in. White Man Club. Actually finding a failing bar might not be best. It would probably be better to just never get a liquor license. But some card tables, pool tables, food and drink, I think it a viable idea. If they ever come knocking (the gov) it is simply a private place. You can't come in. Like a college frat house. Did you know that in some places the cops are not allowed in ? It is the dwelling of too many people and you cannot really get all their consent. From what I heard from a very reliable source is that at UWM they can only come in when someone gets hurt and needs paramedics. Not when anyone calls about loud music or smelling pot. And those cases of nudity and depravity outside on the lawn ? Well if the cops come and they are gone nothing happens. And we are talking fucking Wisconsin here, where the Constitution has never seen the light of day. It's been called the land of the tax. It is probably not the same at MIT because Massachusetts is not even part of the united States. Kinda like Texas. But anyway, it has been put forth though I do not know it is true, that Women were behind prohibition. Now psychologically let me tell you something about the difference between Men and Women. Women are much less likely to be rebels. They respect established authority figures much more than Men. You figure out the reason for that ? They don't have the strength, the moxie and the balls to do things straight up so they tend to use the power of government to get their way. Many Men would just smack soe asshole or stick a gun in his mouth, but most Women cannot do that. Or won't. Women belong, just slightly, subservient to Men. Not alot, not that they have zero rights or anything of the sort. But they should defer to Man's judgement in certain things, and also Men must support and help them. Always. Never abuse them, or hurt them. In fact encourage them to get stronger so they don't walk in saying "I just got raped" but instead "Some dude tried to rape me and I used that move you taught me and he was laying on the ground moaning". In other words it is not just a matter of physical strength. In the past when White Men gained the power it was because they deserved it. Forward thinking, leadership abilities and all that. However things have changed. Most males do not think like Men anymore. That is one of the reasons I have fewer friends now. Your olady won't let you out ? Well OK then. Some of these fucks work ad pay all the bills and let their olady walk all over them like a Mother to a five year old kid. they have to ask if they can go out and play. Fucking sickening. And guess what - when he goes out without her permission she can call the police and say she is afraid of him and then they take him from the house where he is paying the bills, take his guns away and put him in jail and give her everything. And then in divorce court they order him to keep on paying her bills while he is homeless and she has all the cars and he has to walk to work. If this is equal rights it is time to start shooting these cunt. (cunt, like the word fish, is its own plural, just so you know) T^T

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/16/2016 12:01:24 AM)
quote: cunt, like the word fish, is its own plural, just so you know No it's not. http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/cunt

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/16/2016 12:50:58 AM)
You really do have a fucked-up myopic view of the world Termy. And your posts show just how fucked up you are and waay off target. The problem is, just like crumpets, you can't see how fucked up you are and think you are the dogs bollox and dead right on the button. I got news for you.... you're wandering off the beaten path and you're lost. Sometimes you touch on the right thing then you go off-world with your PoV and rantings. And as Dizzy pointed out, cunt is not its own plural.

Termyn8or -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/16/2016 1:45:07 AM)
Cunt is the plural of cunt. If you don't like it, come on down and we can do pistols at ten paces. T^T

tweakabelle -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/16/2016 2:03:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer You simply don't know what you're talking about here, Awareness. You need to go away and actually learn. Yes. And so obvious to anyone who has a reasonable grounding in politics or political science. Why is it that those who know the least are always the most dogmatic?

WhoreMods -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/16/2016 5:38:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Similarly, feminism can only be defined by its impact in the legislative and social spheres (since feminists are apparently unable to define feminism themselves). On that basis, feminism is a movement based on the aggrandizement of middle-class white women through the assertion that white men are oppressive, unlovable swine who hate women and have oppressed them as a class. Consequently, much legislation must be passed to rectify this and white men must be vilified because being white and male means you're inherently evil, defective and/or a cunt. If you think that all feminist criticisms of men are race specific, you know a lot less about feminists than you like to make out. Seriously, you've never heard university educated white girls (which seems to be how you're defining feminists in this context, which should come as news to Caitlin Moran, Jeanette Winterson, Maya Angelou, Octavia Butler and Julie Burchill, for a start) complaining about what a load of controlling sexist pricks black guys can be or seething about the way women get treated in the middle east? But keep flaunting that aggravation over having your sense of entitlement thwarted by uncooperative skanks who think they're smart, dude. It's nice to see where your thoughts on this issue come from.

Awareness -> RE: Feminists Want Harvard’s All-Male Clubs Punished—But Not All-Women’s Clubs (5/16/2016 7:31:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I don't want to cut anyone up with a chainsaw or any other tool. That's called a "figure of speech" in case nobody knew about it. It is a hyperbolic exaggeration of one's disdain for certain things, or people. Yes, I get that, but we live in a society in which every utterance from a man is analysed for traces of thought-crime. Orwell would've had a field day. quote: But the bottom line here Aware, that YOU brought up, is how the hell can we White Men oppress anyone unless we have power over them ? We GAVE Women and minorities power, so therefore it seems logical that we can take it back. The oppression narrative is bullshit. Power accrues those who know how to acquire it and wield it. It's accrued to Asians, Persians, Europeans and Africans. Our modern societies are founded upon essentially egalitarian principles. Power cannot be given, it can only be taken. It's the essential outcome of competition and it's those who are best at this competition who rule. quote: How did we enslave those twice as strong ? Dude, slavery has been practiced all over the world. By the British, the Americans, the Africans, the Arabs, the Persians and the Asians. There's nothing particularly unique about slavery in the American experience, except for the vociferous opposition by those Southerners who benefited from it most. quote: How did we oppress those who bore our own sons and daughters ? Women weren't oppressed dude, they were part of a beneficial social contract. quote: It is a matter of POWER. Not the easiest thing to attain actually but White Men did it and it is in our blood. Ever intimidate anyone ? I have, my Father did. Credible threats. That is all it takes. Usually you do not have to carry them out because people do start thinking "Hmm, this guy might just really mean it". And you can't ask for too much. You rape their olady and leave their kids in a pool of blood no amount of threat will work. No, you cannot just do anything. The acquisition of power is not unique to white men. quote: But anyway, it has been put forth though I do not know it is true, that Women were behind prohibition. No, I think a puritanical strain of thought was behind Prohibition. quote: Now psychologically let me tell you something about the difference between Men and Women. Women are much less likely to be rebels. They respect established authority figures much more than Men. You figure out the reason for that ? Women are more easily led and influenced by emotions, but - bottom line - their lack of testosterone means they're more adverse to risk-taking behaviour. Incidentally that risk-taking behaviour is why men make more money than women. Fascinating what some insight into human psychology will tell you, eh? quote: They don't have the strength, the moxie and the balls to do things straight up so they tend to use the power of government to get their way. Many Men would just smack soe asshole or stick a gun in his mouth, but most Women cannot do that. Or won't. Women have learned over long periods of time to use seduction and manipulation to get their way. Women who possess sexual power are particularly good at it. Feminism is a refuge for women who lack sexual power. You find very few attractive feminists, because women who possess sexual power don't require an group-think victim-hood mantra to gain power for them. quote: In the past when White Men gained the power it was because they deserved it. Forward thinking, leadership abilities and all that. Wrong. The acquisition of power is a value-neutral exercise. Power accrues to those who are best at attaining it. There is no "deserve" about it. quote: However things have changed. Most males do not think like Men anymore. That is one of the reasons I have fewer friends now. Your olady won't let you out ? Well OK then. Most men don't think like men any more because a large proportion of them are raised by single mothers and indoctrinated by women who fear male power. quote: Some of these fucks work ad pay all the bills and let their olady walk all over them like a Mother to a five year old kid. they have to ask if they can go out and play. Fucking sickening. Agreed, they're weak and pathetic. quote: And guess what - when he goes out without her permission she can call the police and say she is afraid of him and then they take him from the house where he is paying the bills, take his guns away and put him in jail and give her everything. And then in divorce court they order him to keep on paying her bills while he is homeless and she has all the cars and he has to walk to work. Yes, the family court system is anti-male and focused upon transferring wealth from men to women. This has been known for decades. quote: If this is equal rights it is time to start shooting these cunt. (cunt, like the word fish, is its own plural, just so you know) Nah. Years ago, some work colleagues and I sat around trying to come up with euphemisms for "bunch of cunts". My favourite was "sack of snatch".

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625