"Open Letter to Feminist Trolls"

[dilloduck]

The problem with your pseudo-intellectual ideology is that the relations between the sexes prior to modern feminism was based on men's ability to physically overpower women. Women could not survive without men. This is no longer the case.

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

That may have been how it started. But I do not see it reversing to any significant degree unless there is a complete societal collapse and we revert to barbaric tribes.

The fact that violence against women is no socially unacceptable to such a degree cannot be undone by economics alone.

And women have become a bigger and bigger part of the economic engine and paying more and more of the taxes.

A woman is in charge of the IMF for God sake. Wake up people.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

Clueless Post of the Day right there.

"Because men permit it". Full of yourself much?

Couldn't possibly exist from women standing up for themselves; couldn't possibly be women refusing to genuflect to patronizing little boy syndromes engorged on their own self-importance. Couldn't possibly be that they're more independent than a pet. No way.

Couldn't possibly be the approval and encouragement of those of us who aren't threatened by women or the idea of equality.

Yeah, you go with that.

Men voted to give women suffrage, men make up most of the politicians today, and men make up the security and enforcement of the state. So yes, it is men protecting legal gains made by feminists.

Feminists should stop hating men so much and be more thankful.

Be thankful? For allowing them to have a vote and allowing them to run their own lives? They should be THANKFUL? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Bush92]

Feminist hate White males because they built this nation on the principle of heterosexuality. Bunch of whiner lesbians.

 

[Samson]

I saw this video and thought some people here could learn something from it.

And there is some NSFW language in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucO4ijwOUN8

Trying to help guys that are rejected by every female they talk or email/chat with, doubt it will help.

As if she is trying to help guys

[MENTION=1324]dilloduck[/MENTION]



There was no Octopus in the video

 

[dilloduck]

Trying to help guys that are rejected by every female they talk or email/chat with, doubt it will help.

As if she is trying to help guys

[MENTION=1324]dilloduck[/MENTION]



There was no Octopus in the video

Tentacles under her desk---I saw the reflection in her eyeglasses.

 

[Samson]

I saw this video and thought some people here could learn something from it.

I saw this picture and thought you could learn something from it

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And women have become a bigger and bigger part of the economic engine and paying more and more of the taxes.

WTF are you talking about?

They've always been a big part of the economic engine. Traditionally they have been responsible for the most important part of the economic engine.

 

[Samson]

The feminist girl in the video just needs a strong man to give her a swift cuffing and a good roll in the the hay to adjust her attitude. ..

[MENTION=11674]Sunni Man[/MENTION]

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

The problem with your pseudo-intellectual ideology is that the relations between the sexes prior to modern feminism was based on men's ability to physically overpower women. Women could not survive without men. This is no longer the case.

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

That may have been how it started. But I do not see it reversing to any significant degree unless there is a complete societal collapse and we revert to barbaric tribes.

The fact that violence against women is no socially unacceptable to such a degree cannot be undone by economics alone.

And women have become a bigger and bigger part of the economic engine and paying more and more of the taxes.

Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe aren't comprised of anarchic societies run by barbaric tribes and they reject most western cultural tenants including feminism. They are growing economically and demographically, in contrast to western societies. So I don't think it will take a societal collapse for a social readjustment of gender roles. It is already occurring, our economy is and living standard is declining, women are returning in larger numbers to domestic homemaker roles, and couples that are married(though that overall number is declining) are less likely to divorce than they were a decade or so ago.

I see society bifurcating personally between more socially conservative/religious types and socially liberal/secular/libertine types. And I think in the long run society will move back towards the center and then the right, away from the secular, consumerist, individualist, leftist, cosmopolitan mainstream. Culture ebbs and flows, it is a cycle.

But that may be where we disagree, as a leftist, you guys generally believe history is a straight line of "progress"(a marxist concept, not calling you one just saying he popularized the idea). I come more out of the tradition of Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola. I think history is one of eras, of epochs, it is cyclical. Neo-Conservatives like Francis Fukiyama and leftists argue we are trudging toward the end of history. I argue we are at the end of the post modern era which had its birth in the enlightenment. I think secularism, individualism, democracy, egalitarianism, and universalism is in its dying throes in the west. It is flaming up right now because it is breathing its last breaths.

Also, no one is advocating violence against women, that is a strawman. That is one complaint I have with you leftists. You guys seem to think history started in the 20th Century or something(WW2 and Civil Rights, before that we were in a perpetual dark age), and that until 1970 marriage was based on violence. I suggest you read more history because you are dreadfully ignorant on the matter. You have this caricatured view of relationships that isn't based in historical reality.

 

[Esmeralda]

The problem with your pseudo-intellectual ideology is that the relations between the sexes prior to modern feminism was based on men's ability to physically overpower women. Women could not survive without men. This is no longer the case.

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

Clueless Post of the Day right there.

"Because men permit it". Full of yourself much?

Couldn't possibly exist from women standing up for themselves; couldn't possibly be women refusing to genuflect to patronizing little boy syndromes engorged on their own self-importance. Couldn't possibly be that they're more independent than a pet. No way.

Couldn't possibly be the approval and encouragement of those of us who aren't threatened by women or the idea of equality.

Yeah, you go with that.

According to current statistics, I believe women are in general more highly educated than men. Women are surpassing men in earning college and university degress, in earning graduate degrees, etc. This has been happening over the past 2 or 3 decades. Won't be long now, fellas, we wimmin gonna take over the world!! And the men will be just muscular has beens and sex toys.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

Clueless Post of the Day right there.

"Because men permit it". Full of yourself much?

Couldn't possibly exist from women standing up for themselves; couldn't possibly be women refusing to genuflect to patronizing little boy syndromes engorged on their own self-importance. Couldn't possibly be that they're more independent than a pet. No way.

Couldn't possibly be the approval and encouragement of those of us who aren't threatened by women or the idea of equality.

Yeah, you go with that.

According to current statistics, I believe women are in general more highly educated than men. Women are surpassing men in earning college and university degress, in earning graduate degrees, etc. This has been happening over the past 2 or 3 decades. Won't be long now, fellas, we wimmin gonna take over the world!! And the men will be just muscular has beens and sex toys.

Oh bummer

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Clueless Post of the Day right there.

"Because men permit it". Full of yourself much?

Couldn't possibly exist from women standing up for themselves; couldn't possibly be women refusing to genuflect to patronizing little boy syndromes engorged on their own self-importance. Couldn't possibly be that they're more independent than a pet. No way.

Couldn't possibly be the approval and encouragement of those of us who aren't threatened by women or the idea of equality.

Yeah, you go with that.

Men voted to give women suffrage, men make up most of the politicians today, and men make up the security and enforcement of the state. So yes, it is men protecting legal gains made by feminists.

Feminists should stop hating men so much and be more thankful.

Be thankful? For allowing them to have a vote and allowing them to run their own lives? They should be THANKFUL? Wow. Just wow.

What he is saying however, is factually true. Women have advanced, because men have allowed them to.
Crude ? Yes, but a fact nonetheless.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

Clueless Post of the Day right there.

"Because men permit it". Full of yourself much?

Couldn't possibly exist from women standing up for themselves; couldn't possibly be women refusing to genuflect to patronizing little boy syndromes engorged on their own self-importance. Couldn't possibly be that they're more independent than a pet. No way.

Couldn't possibly be the approval and encouragement of those of us who aren't threatened by women or the idea of equality.

Yeah, you go with that.

According to current statistics, I believe women are in general more highly educated than men. Women are surpassing men in earning college and university degress, in earning graduate degrees, etc. This has been happening over the past 2 or 3 decades. Won't be long now, fellas, we wimmin gonna take over the world!! And the men will be just muscular has beens and sex toys.

However, men have the power to take it back, if they wanted to.
They won't, but they could.

 

[dilloduck]

Men voted to give women suffrage, men make up most of the politicians today, and men make up the security and enforcement of the state. So yes, it is men protecting legal gains made by feminists.

Feminists should stop hating men so much and be more thankful.

Be thankful? For allowing them to have a vote and allowing them to run their own lives? They should be THANKFUL? Wow. Just wow.

What he is saying however, is factually true. Women have advanced, because men have allowed them to.
Crude ? Yes, but a fact nonetheless.

Men on the Supreme Court ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Be thankful? For allowing them to have a vote and allowing them to run their own lives? They should be THANKFUL? Wow. Just wow.

What he is saying however, is factually true. Women have advanced, because men have allowed them to.
Crude ? Yes, but a fact nonetheless.

Men on the Supreme Court ?

No, I'm talking caveman. If men wanted to revert to barbarism, and decided in mass to physically dominate women, they could take rights away from women, and women would have no choice but to concede.

I'm not for a moment suggesting this should happen, and I'm not suggesting that women have not earned and deserve their status in modern America.

I'm only saying, that if men IN MASS decided to take it all back, they could.
Now we would be instantly dissolving all laws and modern social structure, so this is never going to happen. Plus, you can't get ten men together to agree the sky is blue, so obviously you're not going to see millions of men suddenly decide in unison to put a strong patriarch society back in place, and place a moratorium on all equal rights laws.

 

[dilloduck]

What he is saying however, is factually true. Women have advanced, because men have allowed them to.
Crude ? Yes, but a fact nonetheless.

Men on the Supreme Court ?

No, I'm talking caveman. If men wanted to revert to barbarism, and decided in mass to physically dominate women, they could take rights away from women, and women would have no choice but to concede.

I'm not for a moment suggesting this should happen, and I'm not suggesting that women have not earned and deserve their status in modern America.

I'm only saying, that if men IN MASS decided to take it all back, they could.
Now we would be instantly dissolving all laws and modern social structure, so this is never going to happen. Plus, you can't get ten men together to agree the sky is blue, so obviously you're not going to see millions of men suddenly decide in unison to put a strong patriarch society back in place, and place a moratorium on all equal rights laws.

agreed---the law of the jungle still rules. Sad but true.

 

[Disir]

I don't see how this discounts my point. But yes, this is another point, feminism really only exists in societies with strong social safety nets/welfare states(US, UK, Scandinavia, Western Europe). However, these public welfare systems only exist because of a strong capitalist economic engine(run by men and funded primarily by male taxpayers).

The fact is, once the economic system enters decline, as jobs continue to become lower paying and less abundant, and austerity for the above programs looms, you will see fewer expressions of this aggressive and anti-social feminist activism.

It simple terms, feminism only exists at the moment because it is economically possible and men permit it.

That may have been how it started. But I do not see it reversing to any significant degree unless there is a complete societal collapse and we revert to barbaric tribes.

The fact that violence against women is no socially unacceptable to such a degree cannot be undone by economics alone.

And women have become a bigger and bigger part of the economic engine and paying more and more of the taxes.

Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe aren't comprised of anarchic societies run by barbaric tribes and they reject most western cultural tenants including feminism. They are growing economically and demographically, in contrast to western societies. So I don't think it will take a societal collapse for a social readjustment of gender roles. It is already occurring, our economy is and living standard is declining, women are returning in larger numbers to domestic homemaker roles, and couples that are married(though that overall number is declining) are less likely to divorce than they were a decade or so ago.

I see society bifurcating personally between more socially conservative/religious types and socially liberal/secular/libertine types. And I think in the long run society will move back towards the center and then the right, away from the secular, consumerist, individualist, leftist, cosmopolitan mainstream. Culture ebbs and flows, it is a cycle.

But that may be where we disagree, as a leftist, you guys generally believe history is a straight line of "progress"(a marxist concept, not calling you one just saying he popularized the idea). I come more out of the tradition of Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola. I think history is one of eras, of epochs, it is cyclical. Neo-Conservatives like Francis Fukiyama and leftists argue we are trudging toward the end of history. I argue we are at the end of the post modern era which had its birth in the enlightenment. I think secularism, individualism, democracy, egalitarianism, and universalism is in its dying throes in the west. It is flaming up right now because it is breathing its last breaths.

Also, no one is advocating violence against women, that is a strawman. That is one complaint I have with you leftists. You guys seem to think history started in the 20th Century or something(WW2 and Civil Rights, before that we were in a perpetual dark age), and that until 1970 marriage was based on violence. I suggest you read more history because you are dreadfully ignorant on the matter. You have this caricatured view of relationships that isn't based in historical reality.

The heritage of Latin American women?s political empowerment | The Clayman Institute for Gender Research

Pfffttt.....
http://www.umich.edu/~ac213/student_projects05/cf/history.html

http://www.fem2pt0.com/2012/03/04/how-third-world-feminism-differs-from-first-world-feminism/

 

[skookerasbil]

We certainly have our fair share of miserable feminist bulldogs on this site......you can spot 'em a mile away can you not? I love their posts......as long as I don't have to take a look at their faces, its all good!!!!

 

[Sunni Man]

'Feminist' is a code word for 'Lezbo'.

'Radical Feminist' is usually an ugly 'Bull Dyke' ..

 

[candycorn]

I have a different opinion. I think feminists have been tricked by men to get rid of their fetuses, be responsible for birth control so men don't have to do it, and men have gotten women to put out more.

She is certainly not trying to belittle or hurt guys. She is responding to something we see all too often here.

Very true although I think that the most hurtful in terms of both the pain inflicted and the duality of that pain is not the overt sexists that are here. On one hand, I think it is an act (or at least hope that it is) and it's something that is so outlandish, it isn't taken seriously. On the other hand, what really is effective in both hurting a woman's feelings as well as damaging political aspirations of those who think like them is the latent sexism that I see here; material that is so brain-dead that it is programmed from an early age and is not even amplified; sexism for these folks is a way of life.

During the Hobby Lobby victory celebration, one of these guys said something to the effect that women "still had 16 choices of birth control that Hobby Lobby covers" as if birth control was not prescribed, was a one-size fits all proposition, and a woman was settling for Advil that was covered by the insurance but was upset that Motrin was not covered. For those of you who do not know; they are both ibuprofen, the same active ingredient. This moron didn't know that there are different pills with different hormones, different dosages, had different contraindications, etc... A woman hearing the "You've got 16 choices" BS must be just shaking her head in disbelief at the aloofness. One would hope that the majority of supreme court justices didn't have such a latent view on medicine. I'm sure their clerks provided them with both sides and they made their choices based on their feelings; at least I hope they did.


The only thing sadder is the women here (if they are really women) like [MENTION=1668]Stephanie[/MENTION] who have been beaten down so much by the patriarchal society, she is a now a willing accomplice.

Interesting opinion.