'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

brickmauser

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I suppose any challenge to their dogma is seen as ''male aggression'' or whatever. We have seen it so many times, when challenged they go into victim mode and try to portray the challenge as an attack.

It's a fact and logic free emotional hysteria tantrum.

Sadly there is inbuilt injustice that cannot be overcome.

Women are not as physically stronger or as aggressive or as ruthless or as politically astute as men and are designed to be pregnant for nine months and are therefore inherently vulnerable.
It is just a fact that they are the weaker sex.

It is just a fact of life that more charismatic astute intelligent competitive and ruthless people dominate ohers and there is a pecking order. Men have an advantage over women.

Technology has shifted power from those with brawn to those who are technocratic which has helped women rise to the top across the board.

In backward societies that are dependent on agriculture the clan and tribe and patriarchal system is dominant and women are subjugated.

Were the West to decline technologically due to war climate change immigration from societies with backward cultures and economic collapse then society would revert back to a tradition patriarchal system.

Feminism is only possible and indeed all philosophical investigation is only possible when the economic conditions exist to support a class of women and men who can devote themselves to thinking rather than ther drudgery of farm work and other heavy labour

Disrupt the political economic and cultural system that insulates the unreal world of academic scholasticism and it evaporates like am ice cube in a frying pan.

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

Again you disagree with privilege in education based on wealth?

No. I really didn't. That's your hobby horse but I've never said I disagree with you and I moved on from that point. I was pointing out the fact that if someone mentions the notion of privilege it's likely to be shot down immediately by more than one poster (see the posts above). A story about a woman with privilege, used to bad feminism (your anecdote) received 6 thanks. That's what I'm saying.

I'll repeat it for clarity;I don't disagree with your point, in highlighting the difference in the way the notion of 'privilege' is treated by the posters in this thread.

steddyeddy wrote:

One of my points related to double standards regarding privilege. You can't disagree with gender selection and endorse wealth selection in education. Both are outside your control.

Yeah, I'm really not saying any of that though. I'm pointing out the way the notion of privilege is treated in this thread and similar anti feminist threads

steddyeddy wrote:

Do you disagree with different schools for the rich and the poor?

In theory yes. In reality some people have more choices than others.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was pointing out the fact that if someone mentions the notion of privilege it's likely to be shot down immediately by more than one poster (see the posts above). A story about a woman with privilege, used to bad feminism (your anecdote) received 6 thanks. That's what I'm saying.

I'll repeat it for clarity;I don't disagree with your point, in highlighting the difference in the way the notion of 'privilege' is treated by the posters in this thread.

Yeah, you've said this a few times. What's your point? That posters don't buy into the feminist idea of privilege to beat men? So what?? The sky is blue!!

El_Duderino 09

FortySeven wrote:

Sex on drugs is common as muck. I was at it myself just last week. I never said sex on drink and drugs was rare. That would be an incredibly foolish statement. You appear to have read me wrong. Rape allegations because of confusion over consent are rare. (As in 'these circumstances')

I did misread i thought you said sex on drugs is rare rather than confusion over consent. Some men in this forum bring it us as an important issue and I'm sure it's an important issue for someone who is on the 'maybe raped' side.

FortySeven wrote:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are not a drug user. I have taken every drug I could get and had sex on all of them with partners who were on the same or other drugs. The question of consent has never come up because you are well aware of what you are doing.

Without going into detail. I wouldn't go out onto that limb if I were you.

If that's how drugd affect you that's fine but 'being well aware if wat you're doing' isn't the normal experience on drugs. Look at a busy street at 1am. In your opinion, are those people all 'well aware of what they're doing?

FortySeven wrote:

Alcohol is a different story. This is a very powerful drug and causes more issues than any illegal substance. People pass out, people do things they regret.

I don't know why you keep separating alcohol from drug? If alcohol is likely to cause confusion, then think in terms of alcohol.

FortySeven wrote:

Consent arguments in these cases are he said/she said so no amount of training or teaching will protect a man from a regretful woman who cries rape. That's what it boils down to.

So consent under these circumstances need to be parsed out. That's why I asked a few basic questions about consent and you keep not answering them. It's the whole basis for the idea of consent classes. To discuss consent and avoid these things happening.

FortySeven wrote:

We all know to stop if she says stop. We all know not to have sex with someone who is unconscious. We don't know how she is going to feel about it in the morning. Being on drugs doesn't change any of this, being drunk is a difficult one because a judge may well decide that the girl you thought was fine was in fact impaired.

Can you give consent and withdraw it? What if you're sober and get drunk, then can you withdraw consent? What about if you give consent while drunk and then sober up and don't want to do it? If you're also compared then are you in a good position to judge?

Does everyone know they can simply say stop? That's part of the whole point of these classes. No need for regret if you simply say that you do/don't want to do something.

FortySeven wrote:

The fact you were also impaired doesn't matter here. You are now a rapist.

FortySeven wrote:

I'm not claiming consent is not a grey area in these situations.

And I'm sure it's exactly those situations where most of these grey area 'was it rape or wasn't it' arise. So what should we do about it?

Pumpkin thinks it's all very simple and every 18 year old knows all they need to know about consent. I think that's a ridiculous thing to say

pumpkin4life wrote:

C'mon. Don't sexually assault or rape people. Every 18 year old knows this.

I was a student in the last few years and i saw and heard about things that would make your teeth itch. Consent is not a black and white issue. I hung around with fellas who's banter was completely normal in the setting and in my opinion, was in the grey area and could easily be on the wrong side of consent in plenty of situations.

In hindsight I would say a lot of it could have been rape. Luckily for those fellas, nobody ever pressed a charge because I think some of them would have been in big trouble

El_Duderino 09

Btw I think uni is too late for consent classes. It should be part and parcel of health based sex education

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

Yeah, you've said this a few times. What's your point? That posters don't buy into the feminist idea of privilege to beat men? So what?? The sky is blue!!

And yey buy it hook line and sinker as a tool to beat feminists.

But obviously all the men in this thread are as egalitarian as the day is long, right?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And yey buy it hook line and sinker as a tool to beat feminists.

But obviously all the men in this thread are as egalitarian as the day is long, right?

it is garbage though you might as well talk abut "tall" privilege or "attractiveness" privilege. it seems like your bitch is with nature and evolution?

brickmauser

silverharp wrote: »

it is garbage though you might as well talk abut "tall" privilege or "attractiveness" privilege. it seems like your bitch is with nature and evolution?

Feminists are banging on about so called rape culture because they know the sexual revolution has made the lives of men immeasurably better.

The decline of traditional marriage and the taboo on sex has liberated men generally whereas previously only aristocratic cads could indulge in the pleasures of the flesh now any man whether he is a businessman or a binman can play the field.

Men go out chat up women and have sex with them. At the same time we can have multiple casual sexual relationships. If women withhold sex to try and control men men can dump them and find replacements who will have sex for free.

Feminists come up with codology like rape culture and consent classes and the like to try and reintroduce traditional Puritanism in a new fangled form. Women needed chaperones in the past and now they need to be guided through the minefield of human sexuality. In the past the chaperones were shrewish aunties or nuns. Now they are shrewish feminists - generally ugly unattractive women who want to hit back at men for not showing sexual interest in them.

The male feminist is generally either gay or a beta male who is unsuccessful with women and is in a relationship with a feminist out of desperation. They resent alpha male heteroaexuals out of sexual jealousy.

seamus

The notion of the "privilege" is about the advantages that a person automatically has in life depending on a number of factors. They're not special gold card passes that you're aware of and can use when necessary, but rather they're are advantages and benefits which are taken for granted because you're not even aware an alternative exists.

It can't be denied that being a straight white, middle-class male in a western society automatically places you ahead in society. By default, there is a whole pile of painful crap you'll probably never have to deal with. That's the privilege.

The problem is when some people use "privilege" as a stick to beat one with. It's simple envy, masked as egalitarianism. That someone is not entitled to an opinion on a topic because they're privileged, or that their being privileged is a reason to blame them for the ills of those who are not.

Recognising privilege should simply be a way of finding out where balancing needs to take place - where human rights and discrimination laws need to be bolstered, where government supports should be focused, and so forth. Instead for some they've become silos to retreat into and isolate yourself by telling yourself that X is wrong because he's privileged, he hasn't a clue or Y is wrong because she mentioned the word privilege, therefore she hasn't a clue.

you might as well talk abut "tall" privilege or "attractiveness" privilege.

They are things. People who are tall and/or attractive enjoy privileges that others don't, which they won't really be aware of. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's the nature of randomness. But it can do no harm for everyone to be aware that it exists.

The simplest way to think about it is old trope that everyone should pulls themselves up by their bootstraps, that "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade". And how utterly nonsensical it is. It works for those who also have a jug, some water and a bag of sugar. Hey, what's the issue? Just make lemonade.
For someone with a lemon in his hand and no pot to piss in, he can't make lemonade. He can squeeze a little bit of bitter juice out and pour it into his own mouth, and that's about it.
People like Trump, who would consider themselves "self-made", and others who look up to him and would look down on someone who's not doing well, this is what is meant when "privilege" is talked about. These people are completely unaware that their fortune is 99% accident of birth, 1% hard work, and instead assume it's the exact opposite. And judge the rest of the world based on that.

silverharp

brickmauser wrote: »

Feminists are banging on about so called rape culture because they know the sexual revolution has made the lives of men immeasurably better.

The decline of traditional marriage and the taboo on sex has liberated men generally whereas previously only aristocratic cads could indulge in the pleasures of the flesh now any man whether he is a businessman or a binman can play the field.

Men go out chat up women and have sex with them. At the same time we can have multiple casual sexual relationships. If women withhold sex to try and control men men can dump them and find replacements who will have sex for free.

Feminists come up with codology like rape culture and consent classes and the like to try and reintroduce traditional Puritanism in a new fangled form. Women needed chaperones in the past and now they need to be guided through the minefield of human sexuality. In the past the chaperones were shrewish aunties or nuns. Now they are shrewish feminists - generally ugly unattractive women who want to hit back at men for not showing sexual interest in them.

The male feminist is generally either gay or a beta male who is unsuccessful with women and is in a relationship with a feminist out of desperation. They resent alpha male heteroaexuals out of sexual jealousy.

feminists do on average seem to be at the lower end of sexual market value and only average in terms of career prospects, when is the last time you ever heard an engineer or surgeon male or female spout all the feminists talking points? It doesn't really happen, at best they will end up working for some quango or teach some elective in a college as they work on their research project Twilight fans and related Youtube comments :pac:

brickmauser

silverharp wrote: »

feminists do on average seem to be at the lower end of sexual market value and only average in terms of career prospects, when is the last time you ever heard an engineer or surgeon male or female spout all the feminists talking points? It doesn't really happen, at best they will end up working for some quango or teach some elective in a college as they work on their research project Twilight fans and related Youtube comments :pac:

Powerful women like Teresa May or Angela Merkel do not talk about feminism. They climbed the greasy pole the hard way and didn't complain. They had to work twice as hard as men. The same goes for women who are successful in all areas of life.

Hilary lost partly because she played the female victim card and demanded to be made President. She was up.against the archetypal Alpha Male. Trump is a man who would not have been out of place in Ancient Rome. He certainly acts like Mark Anthony. She showed weakness and was punished.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And yey buy it hook line and sinker as a tool to beat feminists.

WTF? You're confusing a "thanks" to a "buy in". You also seem to be hinting at some sort of "ganged up on" issue which is dangerously close to a whine.

I'll remind you that this is a thread on the supposed "need" that young men have for feminism. I'll wager that most of the posters you refer to recognise that "privilege" when trotted out by feminists, is just a very lazy tactic to silence and belittle men's opinions. In fact, I'd wager that they all have been at the receiving end of such a disingenuous (and hypocritically sexist) tactic.

Like mansplaining; like patriarchy; like hive mind; like any of the other belittling, silencing and sexist tactics feminists employ in the supposed pursuit of "gender equality".

Perhaps the "thanks" come when sauce for the gander becomes good enough for the goose?

But obviously all the men in this thread are as egalitarian as the day is long, right?

Why would you say that?

givyjoe

brickmauser wrote: »

Powerful women like Teresa May or Angela Merkel do not talk about feminism. They climbed the greasy pole the hard way and didn't complain. They had to work twice as hard as men. The same goes for women who are successful in all areas of life.

Hilary lost partly because she played the female victim card and demanded to be made President. She was up.against the archetypal Alpha Male. Trump is a man who would not have been out of place in Ancient Rome. He certainly acts like Mark Anthony. She showed weakness and was punished.

Sorry but, what are basing the 'fact' that they needed to work twice as hard to men on?

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

The notion of the "privilege" is about the advantages that a person automatically has in life depending on a number of factors. They're not special gold card passes that you're aware of and can use when necessary, but rather they're are advantages and benefits which are taken for granted because you're not even aware an alternative exists.

It can't be denied that being a straight white, middle-class male in a western society automatically places you ahead in society. By default, there is a whole pile of painful crap you'll probably never have to deal with. That's the privilege.

The problem is when some people use "privilege" as a stick to beat one with. It's simple envy, masked as egalitarianism. That someone is not entitled to an opinion on a topic because they're privileged, or that their being privileged is a reason to blame them for the ills of those who are not.

Recognising privilege should simply be a way of finding out where balancing needs to take place - where human rights and discrimination laws need to be bolstered, where government supports should be focused, and so forth. Instead for some they've become silos to retreat into and isolate yourself by telling yourself that X is wrong because he's privileged, he hasn't a clue or Y is wrong because she mentioned the word privilege, therefore she hasn't a clue.

They are things. People who are tall and/or attractive enjoy privileges that others don't, which they won't really be aware of. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's the nature of randomness. But it can do no harm for everyone to be aware that it exists.

Society is competitive at the end of the day and sure genetics and a bunch of other factors will put people on different paths but often times the alleged privilege has an attached responsibility. Feminism seems to be a philosophy for lazy people who don't want to be responsible for anything.
Instead of talking about "male privilege" men should be lauded and inspired to greater things. Every time you get in a car or airplane or turn on your computer you are enjoying the product of the male mind and male awesomeness. Feminists seem to want men to give up so they can be kings of the ashes, its pure nihilism

pumpkin4life

silverharp wrote: »

Society is competitive at the end of the day and sure genetics and a bunch of other factors will put people on different paths but often times the alleged privilege has an attached responsibility. Feminism seems to be a philosophy for lazy people who don't want to be responsible for anything.
Instead of talking about "male privilege" men should be lauded and inspired to greater things. Every time you get in a car or airplane or turn on your computer you are enjoying the product of the male mind and male awesomeness. Feminists seem to want men to give up so they can be kings of the ashes, its pure nihilism

Any lads here familiar with r/K selection theory?

brickmauser

Zulu wrote: »

WTF? You're confusing a "thanks" to a "buy in". You also seem to be hinting at some sort of "ganged up on" issue which is dangerously close to a whine.

I'll remind you that this is a thread on the supposed "need" that young men have for feminism. I'll wager that most of the posters you refer to recognise that "privilege" when trotted out by feminists, is just a very lazy tactic to silence and belittle men's opinions. In fact, I'd wager that they all have been at the receiving end of such a disingenuous (and hypocritically sexist) tactic.

Like mansplaining; like patriarchy; like hive mind; like any of the other belittling, silencing and sexist tactics feminists employ in the supposed pursuit of "gender equality".

Perhaps the "thanks" come when sauce for the gander becomes good enough for the goose?

Why would you say that?

I don't find it belittling.

There's nothing new about feminism or any of the other codology.

It's simply plain old belly aching and nagging.

You can either ignore it or pay heed to it.

brickmauser

silverharp wrote: »

Society is competitive at the end of the day and sure genetics and a bunch of other factors will put people on different paths but often times the alleged privilege has an attached responsibility. Feminism seems to be a philosophy for lazy people who don't want to be responsible for anything.
Instead of talking about "male privilege" men should be lauded and inspired to greater things. Every time you get in a car or airplane or turn on your computer you are enjoying the product of the male mind and male awesomeness. Feminists seem to want men to give up so they can be kings of the ashes, its pure nihilism

It's slave morality.
The Roman virtues were subverted by Christianity which as the slave religion and the Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity because it had grown like cancer and if he couldn't beat it why not join it.
The rise of feminism in the past 50 years coincided with modern contraception.
If women were not able to control their reproductive cycle we wouldn't be talking about feminism.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

It can't be denied that being a straight white, middle-class male in a western society automatically places you ahead in society. By default, there is a whole pile of painful crap you'll probably never have to deal with. That's the privilege.

Indeed S, though it could be pretty easily argued that being a straight white, middle class female in a western society is ahead in many ways. On average in Ireland today women are more educated, earn more until kids come along, are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be homeless, have far more social safety nets, far fewer work related deaths and injuries, far fewer suicides and on average live longer, healthier lives. A white middle class woman is damned near a protected species of privilege. That some "feminists" refuse to see that is both telling and at times mesmerising in irony.

brickmauser wrote: »

Women are not as physically stronger or as aggressive or as ruthless or as politically astute as men and are designed to be pregnant for nine months and are therefore inherently vulnerable.
It is just a fact that they are the weaker sex.

Man you need to broaden your reading. Not as politically astute? Ehh… One could easily argue that women are more politically astute and more, one could argue that going on your theories. Women being the less strong and physically aggressive gender have quite simply had to be far more clever at nuanced manoeuvring than men and history reflects that. The old line about "behind every great man is a woman" hold true time and time again and because she's behind him any slings and arrows that fly his way she can usually avoid and her and her children usually get away and can even advance(which is the evolutionary imperative at a very simplistic level).

Hell even that muppet Hillary Clinton who claimed women are the true victims of war :rolleyes: misses the point, or maybe she doesn't… In the vast majority of wars throughout history, certainly before the mechanised wars of the 20th century that targeted civilians more, the vanquished men were slaughtered, but the women were left alive. Sure, they may have been enslaved, even raped, but they and their offspring usually lived on(and if they hooked up with one of the winners and had kids with him, even more advantage pressed). This is even reflected in human genetics. There are more surviving female genetic lines than male. More women than men survived and had kids that survived.

Biologically men are the deposable gender. Even in modern mechanised war. How many million men died in the muddy fields of The Great War? How many women? Now the other side of that coin that is sometimes noted is that women are the perishable gender as far as reproduction goes. And that has some truth to it. Men do have longer reproductive lives, biologically. Practically? Not nearly so much. QV the fewer male genetic lines. Never mind that nature "sees" women having so much value for the group that they live on for decades after menopause and usually outlive men.

brickmauser wrote: »

She was up.against the archetypal Alpha Male. Trump is a man who would not have been out of place in Ancient Rome. He certainly acts like Mark Anthony. She showed weakness and was punished.

Anyone who uses "alpha/beta/gamma/whatever" is almost guaranteed to a) young, b) be buying wholesale into retarded American gender politics and c) utter bloody clueless about the terms themselves. To consider a blowhard like Trump as "alpha" is beyond the Pale, to see him in Rome? :pac: That's up there with whinging social studies Tumblrites comparing him to Hitler. Trump is an American caricature made orange flesh, a wild west snake oil salesmen peddling the American Dream(™) to the sick and desperate and doing it very very well. If Napoleon said(not disparagingly either) that the English were a nation of shopkeepers, I'd say Americans are a nation of salesmen, that contains a large dose of conmen along for the ride. That culture has made it an art form. Trump is but an obvious example of this. He was a better conman than Hillary.

The Roman virtues were subverted by Christianity which as the slave religion

You really need to read more widely and no, adding more Yank blogs and media is not expanding a damned thing. It is far more the case that Roman "virtues" took a middle eastern sect and changed it to suit. Guess why that alone among the Abrahamic faiths christians can enjoy a ham sandwich, wear different types of cloth together :eek: and don't have the compunction with mutilating either gender's kids genitals at birth? The Catholic church itself is largely based along Roman military lines. Oh and before the "christianity scuppered the great Roman empire" stuff, please don't, just don't. To do so would display ignorance in widescreen 3D cinemascope.

The rise of feminism in the past 50 years coincided with modern contraception.
If women were not able to control their reproductive cycle we wouldn't be talking about feminism.

Maybe the Suffragettes favoured the pull out and pray method…

pumpkin4life

Whats a gamma Wibbs? I've heard the other two terms before but not gamma.

I'd snoop round online for it but I'm in work at the moment, if thats ok.

silverharp

brickmauser wrote: »

It's slave morality.
The Roman virtues were subverted by Christianity which as the slave religion and the Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity because it had grown like cancer and if he couldn't beat it why not join it.
The rise of feminism in the past 50 years coincided with modern contraception.
If women were not able to control their reproductive cycle we wouldn't be talking about feminism.

Christianity ticks all the boxes of a patriarchal religion , I'd agree with Wibbs that Christianity didn't take the Roman Empire down. The history of Empires are that they implode at some stage, they get fat and decadent and bankrupt themselves. At a guess I'd say Christianity was promoted in an attempt to restore values

Doctor Jimbob

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed S, though it could be pretty easily argued that being a straight white, middle class female in a western society is ahead in many ways. On average in Ireland today women are more educated, earn more until kids come along, are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to be homeless, have far more social safety nets, far fewer work related deaths and injuries, far fewer suicides and on average live longer, healthier lives. A white middle class woman is damned near a protected species of privilege. That some "feminists" refuse to see that is both telling and at times mesmerising in irony.

This is exactly the issue with the whole privilege thing for me. It´s not that I disagree with the concept that some people are better off than others by accident of birth (I don´t think many would argue this concept), it´s the fact that I find the notion of a bunch of middle class white women telling a bunch of middle class white men that they´re priviledged while completely ignoring their own high position in society utterly laughable.

brickmauser

silverharp wrote: »

Christianity ticks all the boxes of a patriarchal religion , I'd agree with Wibbs that Christianity didn't take the Roman Empire down. The history of Empires are that they implode at some stage, they get fat and decadent and bankrupt themselves. At a guess I'd say Christianity was promoted in an attempt to restore values

The Emperor Julian attempted to reverse the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

Anyway feminists only have the room they have to exist because of Western democratic capitalist civilization.

seamus

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is exactly the issue with the whole privilege thing for me. It´s not that I disagree with the concept that some people are better off than others by accident of birth (I don´t think many would argue this concept), it´s the fact that I find the notion of a bunch of middle class white women telling a bunch of middle class white men that they´re priviledged while completely ignoring their own high position in society utterly laughable.

brickmauser wrote: »

Anyway feminists only have the room they have to exist because of Western democratic capitalist civilization.

Don't both of these posts kind of validate the argument though?

"They should be glad for what they've got, others have it worse". Or, "If this was 1900, they'd really have something to be complaining about!".

I don't think anyone disagrees that any kind of "angry" rhetoric is at all constructive.
However, at the same time belittling or downplaying legitimate concerns is exactly the same kind of thing that men will accuse feminists of.

In effect, everyone is engaging in one-up(wo)manship about who has it worse, or whataboutery about starving orphans in Africa and simply failing to acknowledge that different inequalities do exist for different groups.

And that it's not a competition of, "If this inequality is to be fixed, then I demand mine be fixed too", but that there should be a simple objective of unblocking all inequalities as far as is possible without creating new ones or trying to keep a level score.

Both sides do it, and it can be seen in this thread and in others. "X needs to be unblocked to give greater opportunities for women", is almost instantly met with, "what about men!? OMGZ feminazis", without considering whether that specific issue is also blocked for men.

The hilarious thread complaining about the BAI board of directors is a perfect example of this kneejerk idiotic competitiveness.

Doctor Jimbob

seamus wrote: »

Don't both of these posts kind of validate the argument though?

"They should be glad for what they've got, others have it worse". Or, "If this was 1900, they'd really have something to be complaining about!".

I don't think anyone disagrees that any kind of "angry" rhetoric is at all constructive.
However, at the same time belittling or downplaying legitimate concerns is exactly the same kind of thing that men will accuse feminists of.

In effect, everyone is engaging in one-up(wo)manship about who has it worse, or whataboutery about starving orphans in Africa and simply failing to acknowledge that different inequalities do exist for different groups.

And that it's not a competition of, "If this inequality is to be fixed, then I demand mine be fixed too", but that there should be a simple objective of unblocking all inequalities as far as is possible without creating new ones or trying to keep a level score.

Both sides do it, and it can be seen in this thread and in others. "X needs to be unblocked to give greater opportunities for women", is almost instantly met with, "what about men!? OMGZ feminazis", without considering whether that specific issue is also blocked for men.

The hilarious thread complaining about the BAI board of directors is a perfect example of this kneejerk idiotic competitiveness.

I didn´t say "they should be glad for what they´ve got, others have it worse" though.

brickmauser

seamus wrote: »

Don't both of these posts kind of validate the argument though?

"They should be glad for what they've got, others have it worse". Or, "If this was 1900, they'd really have something to be complaining about!".

I don't think anyone disagrees that any kind of "angry" rhetoric is at all constructive.
However, at the same time belittling or downplaying legitimate concerns is exactly the same kind of thing that men will accuse feminists of.

In effect, everyone is engaging in one-up(wo)manship about who has it worse, or whataboutery about starving orphans in Africa and simply failing to acknowledge that different inequalities do exist for different groups.

And that it's not a competition of, "If this inequality is to be fixed, then I demand mine be fixed too", but that there should be a simple objective of unblocking all inequalities as far as is possible without creating new ones or trying to keep a level score.

Both sides do it, and it can be seen in this thread and in others. "X needs to be unblocked to give greater opportunities for women", is almost instantly met with, "what about men!? OMGZ feminazis", without considering whether that specific issue is also blocked for men.

The hilarious thread complaining about the BAI board of directors is a perfect example of this kneejerk idiotic competitiveness.

All the battles have been won.
Women and men over 18 can vote.
There is equality before the law there is divorce contraception education and discrimination is illegal.
The raison d'être of classic feminism is no more.
1st world women have next to nothing to complain about.
There is a free society and a free market.
Good looking young and attractive confident wealthy men and women have the best of all possible worlds.
The fat ugly unhappy sexually dysfunctional malcontents want to crash and ruin the party.
In the past these freaks were the religious fundamentalists and became monks and priests and nuns and pushed supetnatural gibberish about heaven and hell to make us all guilty.
Now they are feminists and social justice warriors and we all have to check out privilege.
That is essentially what has happened.
A new cult has replaced the old but the same old Puritanism.

Zulu

brickmauser wrote: »

All the battles have been won.
...

Lets see...

There is equality before the law there is divorce contraception education and discrimination is illegal.

Dunno about that. More work required on all sides here.

There is a free society and a free market.

Disagree.

The fat ugly unhappy sexually dysfunctional malcontents want to crash and ruin the party.
In the past these freaks were the religious fundamentalists and became monks and priests and nuns and pushed supetnatural gibberish about heaven and hell to make us all guilty.
Now they are feminists and social justice warriors and we all have to check out privilege.

Ahhh, insults? Whats that under the bridge?? Troll harder.

seamus

Wonderful. It's like clockwork.

"Everything is not fine"

"Yes it is! Anyone who says different is a malcontent freak and needs to STFU".

Awesome.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the "privilege" being referred to, as much as we all hate that word. The privilege of not having to experience a life where the odds have been stacked against you. And being able to say that because you haven't experienced something, that it doesn't exist.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Wonderful. It's like clockwork.

"Everything is not fine"

"Yes it is! Anyone who says different is a malcontent freak and needs to STFU".

Awesome.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly the "privilege" being referred to, as much as we all hate that word. The privilege of not having to experience a life where the odds have been stacked against you. And being able to say that because you haven't experienced something, that it doesn't exist.

the thing is the people who use "privilege" in every other sentence tend to come from very comfortable backgrounds and have parents that have the wherewithal to get them into college, they never had the odds stacked against them.
there have been a few threads on AH about education where class, background etc have been discussed reasonably well , no need for the term at all, its just cover

Wibbs

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Whats a gamma Wibbs? I've heard the other two terms before but not gamma.

Christ knows P. IIRC its a man with some "alpha" and "beta" characteristics as laid down by more imported "red pill" and PUA cretinism from across the pond.

brickmauser wrote:

The Emperor Julian attempted to reverse the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

which was a reactionary "solution" to faltering empire blaming Christianity, which was itself a reaction to faltering empire.

OH and FWIW I think one of the worst things that happened in European history was Rome importing Christianity, but not for the reasons usually trotted out by the barely informed US college juniors on Reddit. What was lost wasn't empire, as that was on the wane(thankfully*), but a cultural sense of pluralism that tends to be much stronger in polytheistic societies. Monotheism of any stripe is IMH a curse. If your neighbours worship a pantheon of different gods and that's accepted as normal, other differences are easier to accept. In classical Rome different creeds, classes and peoples lived close together. Ghettoisation was not nearly the problem it became.



*If Rome hadn't fallen the empire would have stagnated, looked inward, with the odd burst of innovation. QV China, the Muslim empire, or indeed the Eastern Roman empire all of which did stagnate. Invasion also becomes far easier with centralised empires. A continuation of Rome would have likely fallen wholesale to the Muslim empire, if not the later Mongol armies. The Mongols marched into China cut off the emperor and took over. In Europe they would have had to defeat successive waves of already tooled up constantly shifting nation states, all the time. Europe became the military, technological and cultural powerhouse it is from constant internal competition which brings innovation, with(for a long period) an overall bonding "empire" of the Roman church. The best of both worlds.

TheDavester

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I think we're far beyond society merely being 'influenced' by feminist rhetoric at this stage, unfortunately.

What annoys me is that on the one hand here we have a woman suggesting that she doesn't think women should be treated any differently to men and feminists will echo that most of the time (excluding when queues are being formed for lifeboats of course) but yet there are times when they themselves will often imply that they should be treated with more regard than men in certain situations.

An example to illustrate that would be during the whole UCD 200 nonsense (photos of girl's were claimed to have been disturbed between some students and then rated) and Louise O'Neill went on the radio (The Last Word) to harrumph the nation. She came out with a lot of horseshite on that show but the most irritating thing which she said was in response to the suggestion that photos of naked boys were sometimes being passed around also.....



So, Louise, who strives for equality and who is at pains to point out much men need feminism, feels that there should only be empathy for women who have compromising images of themselves shared on line. Hhhm, seems old George was right and some animals are indeed more equal than others

You can listen to that interview here.

Listened to that interview and you could hear Anton groaning at some of the guff she comes out with - the bit where she said it doesn't matter if its photos of a fella was really moronic, shes a grade A hypocrite