PeonForHer
Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
A, firstly, you're not in a position to talk about people 'acting like emotional children'. You can't get through a post on almost anything without getting emotional. Your posts are full of anger. That's why they're so replete with 'fuckings', etc, etc. Almost everything you say here is a 'shouting down'. Oh please. Your lack of perception is your own fucking problem. You have absolutely zero idea of my emotional state when I'm posting, you merely read into it what you wish to see, because it feeds your delusional need for a sense of superiority. Suffice to say, you lack both perception and imagination.
Strewth, A. You say yourself, not a few lines later, that 'Words are defined by their usage within a community'. What do you think your continued use of 'fuckings', laced with the odd 'cunt', say, given that? They're meant to imply what you want them to imply. I've no need for great levels of perception and imagination - everybody knows a boor when he sees one writing. As for 'sense of superiority' - what is the matter with you? You've spent a major about of the time on this board telling me and other malesubs that we're intent on fostering a sense of *inferiority* in ourselves. This is our 'weakness', in your view.
quote:
What you're basically saying is that you could define yourself as a tree-frog and this would somehow affect objective reality - which is utter fucking nonsense. And as for "this is because they're made up terms" - those things are called "words" you mental midget.
Christ, what fucking universe do you live in? Does it have any connection to reality? At all?
Simply cretinous. You knew, or should know, that 'made up terms' is derived from the phrase 'social construct' itself. 'Constructed' = 'made up'. But now you're being willfully stupid.
quote:
quote:
Yes, yes ... I read Robert Bly's Iron John when it came out, too. There are these rituals (or were, until present-day advanced socieities, when they came to be lacking, according to Bly - and for very good reasons according to his critics ) ... and they varied across the world. They were more than just the Jungian 'slaying of the dragon', though ... and the 'mother complex' wasn't wholly defined as a negative thing. Though ... you really want to invoke Carl Jung after just having trumpeted the supposed 'scientific support' for your views? Seriously? I mean, I'm something of a fan of Jung ... but, bloody hell, even his mentor, Freud, was being ripped to shreds as a 'scientist' within decades of his death, and Jung never had Freud's clout. It's a metaphor, you simpleton.
Righty ho - when called on for invoking two thinkers with questionable scientific credentials, in support of the scientific argument you put in the preceding paragraph, pop, you're now talking 'metaphors'. God, you're a bullshitter. 
quote:
quote:
quote:
Strong teens join gangs because they are the only social unit in Western societies which engage in rites of passage. The lack of rites of passage in Western societies has thus caused multiple social problems, with one being men such as yourself who compromise their masculinity in their quest for female acceptance. The woman is the centre of your social existence and thus your masculinity is warped to that end.
The last sentence is of course simply prejudiced nonsense. As for the rest: Get real. Teen boys join gangs and end up screwing up at school and frequently falling into the arms of the police. Gangs enforce and reinforce behaviour. The individual kid who doesn't actually want to be a violent thug is bullied by peer group pressure into being just that. The average gang-member is not more free and more individual, he's less so on both counts. (On the other teenage boys who group together, work together, join clubs ... *that* is different. Did your concept of 'gang' include that?) Even then, though, in order to become authentic as oneself, the teenage boy eventually has to leave the gang in order to finish growing up. Way to miss the point. Completely. Look, it's truly a waste of time for you to respond to points you don't fully understand. Just post something to that effect and move on.
Now you're into Olympic level bullshitting. OK, then, sure - let's just move on.
quote:
quote:
Oh cut out the 'fuckings', A. Those alone are a dead giveaway of your own rigid and blinkered idea of 'masculinity'. You only use them to suggest that you're suitably aggressive, forthright, strong and wearily angry at those who disagree with your leadership in this (as indeed apparently all) debates. As for the rest: no, I don't have to 'man up' (except in the sense of being who I am) ... and even if I did, you'd not be able to tell whether or not I'd 'manned up' because your idea of masculinity isn't objective, and sure as hell isn't mine. You're such a child when it comes to so many things. You have the simplest outlook, completely devoid of nuance. Maybe one day, when you grow up.....
quote:
quote:
quote:
Actually, they don't ... well, apart from you and RM. What are you saying to me, A? Is this a version of 'Peon - Aha! Your view on masculinity might work in practice - but does it work in *theory*?' In the real world, outside of your books, I go to BDSM clubs and mix with maledoms, malesubs, homosexual men and women, TVs and TGs. None of them has ever made the slightest noise at me about 'finding me wanting in manliness'. This is because they're *grown up*. They don't have teenage hang ups any more. Another straw man on your part. And now you're misinterpreting social inhibition and engaging in mind-reading. Is there any thought you have which is actually logically constructed? At any time? Because you sure as shit seem like someone who throws together random ideas and hopes they stick.
Does this tactic work, A? Seriously? I must try it some time. 'Try to gauge what is most glaringly wrong with your own thinking and what your opponent is most likely to throw at you - and hit him with exactly that first!'
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
Honestly you gender weirdos are so easy to take apart, your arguments are just such childish nonsense. Should I even mention that if your stance fails to explain why trans folk attempt to mimic the BIOLOGICAL aspects of the opposite gender? Surely, all they need to do is declare themselves male or female and then - by your logic - they magically are male or female.
God, A. Can you be this dense? Have you seriously not understood the most basic thing that I've said? Or are you putting it on? Either way, I just don't get you. And ... I've near run out of interest in getting you, too. So basically you don't have an answer and this well known contradiction between gender theorists and the trans community is something you're still unable to explain. Noted. Nup, you're still missing the basic point, and I can no longer be bothered to teach you it.
quote:
Yes, people fight to defend their families. My grandfather did. My father fought, in his own way, against the IRA. I can only imagine how disappointed they are in you.
As of last month, 'were', in both cases. No, they were both proud of me. They were right wing, but saw what I'd struggled for, on occasion. And you demonstrate sod all understanding of the Left, yet again, by talking about it in the way that you do. Straw man upon straw man. But what about you, A? No doubt the same could never be said of yourself, having honed your mind and body into the warrior-like state it's in today - and fought so heroically for all that you believe in, hmmm? I mean, doubtless you're *much* more than just a keyboard warrior and the Silverback of CS?
quote:
quote:
Presumably you've heard of arguments to that effect in relation to wars? Usually by mental incompetents who understand nothing of human psychology and geopolitics. Whose simplistic "war is bad" mantra extends to "war is bad because toxic masculinity". Psychologically damaged fruitcakes, in other words.
Cobblers, and you know it. From WW1 through to the present-day some of the bravest people there have been, have been conscientious objectors. And you, old chap, are pissing all over (to use your own delightful phrase) the ex-fighters who have campaigned against war.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh please. An avowed sexist telling me that I don't know how to treat women as human beings. That's too rich. Also - this, from someone who has spent a big portion of this thread barking at them as though they're all dangerous medusas and harpies? Women are every bit as corrupt, selfish, deluded and venal as men. Your refusal to accept this reality is why you're a boy, not a man.
Tell me where I've ever said that women can't be as nasty as men, you blithering fruitcake. Of course they can - just as they can learn to operate machines, fire guns - and, yep, grow up to be femdoms. Or have I still failed, even after all this time, to convey to you that as someone who favours a social constructionist viewpoint I don't buy into an essentialism that dictates that women are 'hard wired' by Nature to be fluffy, squeaky-nice ... and submissive?
< Message edited by PeonForHer -- 11/7/2016 11:13:10 AM >
_____________________________
http://www.domme-chronicles.com
|
RE: Don't Women Want The Same Things As Men? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread