'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

Paddy Porter

weldoninhio wrote: »

They seem to have become the "voice of the snowflake" for some reason. Full of chat about the issues but not so full of chat about the solutions.

So true Dude ! That room is...kinda full !

Skommando

silverharp wrote: »

what about jobs that feminists do? the cliche is that they complain about the lack of women in STEM from their gender studies dept? if they are trying to break stereotypes they should be lepping into fields like engineering and IT but I dont get that sense? they seem to keep to safe fields like quangos or teaching/studying the lite courses in colleges?

Also you'd think if they are genuinely interested in gender equality, they'd be pointing out and trying to address the higher male unemployment rates, the higher male suicide rates, higher homeless rates, the portrayal of men in the vast majority of television advertising, not as equal partners, but instead as stupid useless halfwits loosers subservient to women, the lack of gender equality when it comes to all doing the dirty dangerous low paid outdoor work, serious injuries and death at work, and the lack of gender equality in professions such as teaching, social work etc . . and the list goes on, but you get the idea. The worst thing is many of these feminists, have or will go on to be mothers and partners to males who will face exactly these problems they deliberately choose to ignore and perpetuate, while spreading as many nasty stereotypes they can about males at every opportunity.

Jimmy Garlic

silverharp wrote: »

what about jobs that feminists do? the cliche is that they complain about the lack of women in STEM from their gender studies dept? if they are trying to break stereotypes they should be lepping into fields like engineering and IT but I dont get that sense? they seem to keep to safe fields like quangos or teaching/studying the lite courses in colleges?

True enough. You never hear them calling for gender quotas for dirty and/or dangerous jobs such as bin collection, maintenance of high voltage power lines, and the like. It is always the safe cushy numbers.

Renegade Mechanic

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I don't really know what this response means, but you well know that people were referring to physical attractiveness. Don't change the goalposts. People referred to feminists as physically unattractive as a rule, yourself included (citing attractiveness as the exception to the rule). Once it was pointed out that this isn't really the case, you decided it meant metaphorical ugliness. Now, now.

And what makes you say that isn't the case. You really expect me to believe you won't move them yourself and proclaim fish-mouth syndrome an attractive look? I suppose you will
I consider most feminists physically unattractive because they strike me as such. Looking deeper than just appearance, I consider just about all feminists unattractive.

brickmauser

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Depends on what constitutes attractiveness.
Not all unattractive people are feminists, but just about all feminists are unattractive when you dig deeper than the skin. Most people find the values held by feminism today unattractive - myself included, and I'm no show pony...
Some of the most hideously ugly people I've known were absolutely stunning on the outside.

Attractiveness is not a mystery.

Women are attracted to tall broad shouldered men who have a v shaped torso with a well developed chest and arms flat stomach narrow waist firm buttocks and muscular legs. The most attractive male face has a strong jaw and chin with regular symmetrical features and good teeth. A man must be capable of growing a full beard if he is clean shaven. If a man is physically athletic and assertive and dominant he will attract women.

The more a man lacks these looks and traits the less likely his female or male partners will be physically attractive and if a man is entirely lacking in any of these in terms of looks or persobality he is likely to be entirely friendless and alone.

Men are attracted to women who have symmetrical faces have large breasts a curvaceous body with a good waist to hip ratio and shapely buttocks and legs. She must not be too skinny or too fat. If she is overweight or skinny a man has to believe she would look like a 9 or 10 if she worked out and ate better. She must not droop before she is 30. If she is a 6 or lower chances are she is sexually insecure and a feminist. Go above 7 and feminist tendencies decline and are entirely nonexistent in 9s or 10s.
If a woman was hot at 21 but is single at 30 her feminist tendencies rise in proportion to her decline in standards in men.

Losers who have not had success with women in their teens and twenties start to notice women aged 30 and over start to show an interest as these women show a fall off in optimum male attention as they begin to hit the wall without a helmet.

Men with resources who noticeably decline in physical attractiveness in their 30s 40s and 50s notice no decline in their attractiveness to 9s and 10s women aged 21 to 30.

Sand

brickmauser wrote: »

Attractiveness is not a mystery.

Women are attracted to tall broad shouldered men who have a v shaped torso with a well developed chest and arms flat stomach narrow waist firm buttocks and muscular legs. The most attractive male face has a strong jaw and chin with regular symmetrical features and good teeth. A man must be capable of growing a full beard if he is clean shaven. If a man is physically athletic and assertive and dominant he will attract women.

The more a man lacks these looks and traits the less likely his female or male partners will be physically attractive and if a man is entirely lacking in any of these in terms of looks or persobality he is likely to be entirely friendless and alone.

Men are attracted to women who have symmetrical faces have large breasts a curvaceous body with a good waist to hip ratio and shapely buttocks and legs. She must not be too skinny or too fat. If she is overweight or skinby a man has to believe she would look like a 9 or 10 if she worked out and ate better. If she is a 6 or lower chances are she is sexually insecure and a feminist. Go above 7 and feminist tendencies decline and are entirely nonexistent in 9s or 10s.
If a woman was hot at 21 but is single at 30 her feminist tendencies rise in proportion to her decline in standards in men.
Losers who have not had success with women in their teens and twenties start to notice women aged 30 and over start to show an interest.
Men with resources who noticeably decline in physical attractiveness in their 30s 40s and 50s notice no decline in their attractiveness to 9s and 10s women aged 21 to 30.

They should give you your own YouTube channel. It would be hilarious.

Sand

silverharp wrote: »

what about jobs that feminists do? the cliche is that they complain about the lack of women in STEM from their gender studies dept? if they are trying to break stereotypes they should be lepping into fields like engineering and IT but I dont get that sense? they seem to keep to safe fields like quangos or teaching/studying the lite courses in colleges?

There are no feminists in foxholes.

Renegade Mechanic

Sand wrote: »

They should give you your own YouTube channel. It would be hilarious.

Kinda funny how everybody unanimously agrees on natural selection until it comes to the animal known as "human"

brickmauser

Sand wrote: »

They should give you your own YouTube channel. It would be hilarious.

I'm not trying to be hilarious.
I am being perfectly serious.

Sand

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Kinda funny how everybody unanimously agrees on natural selection until it comes to the animal known as "human"

I rate human beings a little higher than rodents. Because they are. I could talk all night about the the underlying cynicism and degradation inherent in the dangerous philosophy that man is just another animal.

brickmauser

Sand wrote: »

I rate human beings a little higher than rodents. Because they are. I could talk all night about the the underlying cynicism and degradation inherent in the dangerous philosophy that man is just another animal.

Man IS just another animal

Sand

brickmauser wrote: »

Man IS just another animal

I fully expect that belief from yourself giving your posts could indeed be hammered out be a chimp blindly mashing the keyboard and be just as amusing.

mzungu

brickmauser wrote: »

Attractiveness is not a mystery.

Women are attracted to tall broad shouldered men who have a v shaped torso with a well developed chest and arms flat stomach narrow waist firm buttocks and muscular legs. The most attractive male face has a strong jaw and chin with regular symmetrical features and good teeth. A man must be capable of growing a full beard if he is clean shaven. If a man is physically athletic and assertive and dominant he will attract women.

The more a man lacks these looks and traits the less likely his female or male partners will be physically attractive and if a man is entirely lacking in any of these in terms of looks or persobality he is likely to be entirely friendless and alone.

Men are attracted to women who have symmetrical faces have large breasts a curvaceous body with a good waist to hip ratio and shapely buttocks and legs. She must not be too skinny or too fat. If she is overweight or skinny a man has to believe she would look like a 9 or 10 if she worked out and ate better. She must not droop before she is 30. If she is a 6 or lower chances are she is sexually insecure and a feminist. Go above 7 and feminist tendencies decline and are entirely nonexistent in 9s or 10s.
If a woman was hot at 21 but is single at 30 her feminist tendencies rise in proportion to her decline in standards in men.

Losers who have not had success with women in their teens and twenties start to notice women aged 30 and over start to show an interest as these women show a fall off in optimum male attention as they begin to hit the wall without a helmet.

Men with resources who noticeably decline in physical attractiveness in their 30s 40s and 50s notice no decline in their attractiveness to 9s and 10s women aged 21 to 30.

Ah jaysus :rolleyes:

_Jamie_

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

You really expect me to believe you won't move them yourself and proclaim fish-mouth syndrome an attractive look? I suppose you will

You might want to have another go at that for it to make sense.

ligerdub

_Jamie_ wrote: »

What is the "rule" then?

I'm youngish. Not all attractive feminists of my acquaintance are super young. Some are, some aren't.

So yeah, anyway, this rule. What is it? From what I can see, feminists are all kinds of people. Attractive, not attractive, some are wealthy, some aren't, some are more intelligent than others. There is no formula.

I think the younger generation are taking it in as its effectively mainstream now (at least to say you are, brand your social media pages with repeal heart logos and **** like that), and is quite a good sell to your peers. I'm not entirely convinced that many of them are taking up the cause because it's something they've considered and taken the views on board, it's more an effective way of moulding an image. Feminism was almost entirely anonymous, almost non-existent when I was between 18-25 (I'm 33 now). The only time I spoke to someone who spoke on feminist issues or was a feminist back then was when I was working in the civil service in the summer holidays. She was a nice enough woman but she was an embittered single middle aged woman (probably just turned 40 at that time). In over 5 years of post-secondary school education I met many women students, and nobody gave a **** about it.

The way I see it there is a younger crop of feminists, mostly under 30 now, extremely vocal, quite a militant style, and then not much then until a cohort of women probably in their 50's now, less fond of looking glamorous than their younger sorts, and more lesbianic in nature. The older feminists formed the classic stereotype of a feminist as a butch, androgynous type. They are probably less militant than the younger ones funnily enough, and many of them are shaking their heads about what it is the younger ones are seeking! That's where the classic ugly, feminist stereotype comes from. Let's be honest, there's still a lot of those latching on to feminism among the younger groups, it's just there are a lot more lipstick and makeup feminists these days.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

I could talk all night about the the underlying cynicism and degradation inherent in the dangerous philosophy that man is just another animal.

Indeed Sir, it seems to have come with the pendulum swing away from the Christian notion of man being above the animals, made in god's image and all that. Understandable, but IMH the swing has gone way too far in the other direction. The reductist overreaction of the adolescent minded shouting at their parents "I don't believe in your god! so there!". Suburban Nietzsche acolytes hoping to be counted among the smug who "killed god". Like the red pill and feminist stuff, much of it also comes from the US, where the beleaguered agnostic and atheist is set against fire breathing preachers and snake handlers from Kentucky one horse towns, so naturally both tend to egg each other up to the point of farce. Ever tried to debate either flavour on youtube or reddit? Jaaaaay-zuz. :eek::D

brickmauser wrote:

Man IS just another animal

Just another bauble on the tree of life* eh? Difference being we imagine and build baubles and make symbols of them and trees and we can have this conversation and conversations near infinite in scope and we'll imagine bigger conversations and may one day reach the stars(or our descendants will), maybe even bend the stars themselves to our will. We alone understand, hell, need to understand our place in reality and describe such a journey in myriad fashions, from gods, through philosophies to the sciences. We actually changed our own evolution and not just since these early stages of of genetics research. Your very body is honed by our externalisation of evolution. NO other animal has come close to that. Hell, on the symbolic creative front, no other previous humans have come close to us. Before we came along, you could comfortably fit pretty much the entirety of a near million years of archaic humanity's symbolism into a woman's handbag and even then most of it would be debatable. Just another animal? Me bollex.

ligerdub wrote:

lesbianic

Should defo be a word.


*Stephen J Gould?

ligerdub

You can imagine how happy I was to type that word and pass it off as a real word. It's endlessly satisfying.

brickmauser

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed Sir, it seems to have come with the pendulum swing away from the Christian notion of man being above the animals, made in god's image and all that. Understandable, but IMH the swing has gone way too far in the other direction. The reductist overreaction of the adolescent minded shouting at their parents "I don't believe in your god! so there!". Suburban Nietzsche acolytes hoping to be counted among the smug who "killed god". Like the red pill and feminist stuff, much of it also comes from the US, where the beleaguered agnostic and atheist is set against fire breathing preachers and snake handlers from Kentucky one horse towns, so naturally both tend to egg each other up to the point of farce. Ever tried to debate either flavour on youtube or reddit? Jaaaaay-zuz. :eek::D

Just another bauble on the tree of life* eh? Difference being we imagine and build baubles and make symbols of them and trees and we can have this conversation and conversations near infinite in scope and we'll imagine bigger conversations and may one day reach the stars(or our descendants will), maybe even bend the stars themselves to our will. We alone understand, hell, need to understand our place in reality and describe such a journey in myriad fashions, from gods, through philosophies to the sciences. We actually changed our own evolution and not just since these early stages of of genetics research. Your very body is honed by our externalisation of evolution. NO other animal has come close to that. Hell, on the symbolic creative front, no other previous humans have come close to us. Before we came along, you could comfortably fit pretty much the entirety of a near million years of archaic humanity's symbolism into a woman's handbag and even then most of it would be debatable. Just another animal? Me bollex.

Should defo be a word.


*Stephen J Gould?

Human beings are just animals. Read a science book

_Jamie_

ligerdub wrote: »

The older feminists formed the classic stereotype of a feminist as a butch, androgynous type.

Not really. Gloria Steinem was a good looking high profile 70s feminist to name one. Germaine Greer was perfectly presentable too. That's just two. I bet if we looked back at the high profile early wave feminists, they'd greatly vary in looks just like now. The butch, angry feminist is a stereotype. Not that there aren't feminists like that but there is no evidence that it was the majority back in the day or is the majority now.

'Lesbianic' though!

Renegade Mechanic

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Not really. Gloria Steinem was a good looking high profile 70s feminist to name one. Germaine Greer was perfectly presentable too. That's just two. I bet if we looked back at the high profile early wave feminists, they'd greatly vary in looks just like now. The butch, angry feminist is a stereotype. Not that there aren't feminists like that but there is no evidence that it was the majority back in the day or is the majority now.

Lesbianic though!

First wave feminists were great. They fought actual issues like women not being allowed to vote or divorce. They would tear the current "third wave" idiots to absolute shreds for the damage they're doing to the progress originally made.

_Jamie_

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

First wave feminists were great. They fought actual issues like women not being allowed to vote or divorce. They would tear the current "third wave" idiots to absolute shreds for the damage they're doing to the progress originally made.

I agree.

I was just talking about their appearance. The butch feminist stereotype never seemed massively rooted in reality as the norm. There was some and still is, I'm sure, but it wasn't ever the majority of women involved in the feminist movement from what I can see. So when people criticise and undermine feminist movements past and present based on that, they let themselves down.

ligerdub

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Not really. Gloria Steinem was a good looking high profile 70s feminist to name one. Germaine Greer was perfectly presentable too. That's just two. I bet if we looked back at the high profile early wave feminists, they'd greatly vary in looks just like now. The butch, angry feminist is a stereotype. Not that there aren't feminists like that but there is no evidence that it was the majority back in the day or is the majority now.

'Lesbianic' though!

I'll give you Steinem but I'm not having Greer, in any sense, she is ugly both inside and out. It's no surprise that prominent types tend to be more presentable in a TV age, they aren't necessarily representative of the overall movement in general. I believe that the further you go back, the greater the level of need for a feminist movement, but the vast majority of its merit is from 100 years ago. I have a degree of respect for feminists from the 70's in that even though I disagree with a lot of what they say, many of them at least gave significant time and effort in what and why they were involved. Feminism now is a black jumper, a repeal logo and a few retweets. It's easy, it's militant, and it's mainstream. It's no surprise that it has caught a higher percentage of attractive women than it's 70's counterpart.

The movement from back then was a rejection of the typical beauty standards women state they feel pressurised to keep up, and sticking it to the man. There is still a presence of that approach among some younger feminists these days, but it's very much optional. Stereotypes of feminists have been in place since before the most recent flock of feminists to emerge, and it was formed out of a reasonable basis, and based on the entire mix, not just one or two people, and of course there will be some that will be atypical. You disagree, fair enough, nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

I don't buy into the idea that feminism is a diverse group of all shapes and sizes. Fair enough there are a small number of cases that will make it arguable, but I dare say feminism isn't a big issue for the women of Finglas, Ballyfermot, Coolock and the like (no disrespect to those places). Even going back to the roots of feminism, it was centred among the upper classes who only found a problem when lower class males were granted the vote (and they were right to do so of course). There is an inherent snobbery, ego and selfishness that feminists have, yeah that's an opinion, but feck it, I stand by it.

Goya

Feminists I know are good people and they certainly don't hate men - they identify as feminist for well meaning reasons. I used to be the same. Then it dawned on me how divisive today's feminism is, how it does demonise men, how it is not about equality - just women's rights, how hypocritical it is, and how it infantilises and makes victims of women... That's not to say that there isn't misogyny/sexism towards women, or that feminism wasn't once a great thing (it was of course, and I'm hugely thankful for it) but today's feminism addresses women's issues from a fanatical angle, which is harmful.

Wibbs

brickmauser wrote: »

Human beings are just animals.

That's my argument destroyed then...

Read a science book

hahahahahah… oh wait… you're serious? Damn near everything you commit to screen is pure Bro Science.

mzungu

brickmauser wrote: »

Human beings are just animals. Read a science book

Ah come off it, that is a bit rich considering you have been throwing around terms like "alpha" and "beta" under the guise of science, even though science does not agree with you at all. The PUA guru types who spout that nonsense are working off David Mech's discredited theory from the 1970s. Incidentally, even Mech himself has agreed that he got things totally wrong when describing "alphas" and "betas" in wolf packs. Link to his website here:http://www.davemech.org/news.html

David Mech wrote:

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. "Alpha" implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that's all we call them today, the "breeding male," "breeding female," or "male parent," "female parent," or the "adult male" or "adult female."

Might be time to drop the "Red Pill" sub-reddit and read a science book yourself!

Widdershins

ligerdub wrote: »

You can imagine how happy I was to type that word and pass it off as a real word. It's endlessly satisfying.

There is a word for it. Sapphic.

pumpkin4life

I've read some of this "red pill" stuff before and in all honesty, it's (bar some of the more the autistic terminology), just common sense stuff that everyone knows or should know, siphoned through some snake oil bull****.

Men like young beautiful women.

Women like tall men.

Don't be a pushover etc.

Not exactly mind blowing hidden knowledge like.

FortySeven

Widdershins wrote: »

There is a word for it. Sapphic.

Did you swallow a thesaurus when you were young?

Jimmy Garlic

Flimpson wrote: »

Feminists I know are good people and they certainly don't hate men - they identify as feminist for well meaning reasons. I used to be the same. Then it dawned on me how divisive today's feminism is, how it does demonise men, how it is not about equality - just women's rights, how hypocritical it is, and how it infantilises and makes victims of women... That's not to say that there isn't misogyny/sexism towards women, or that feminism wasn't once a great thing (it was of course, and I'm hugely thankful for it) but today's feminism addresses women's issues from a fanatical angle, which is harmful.

I am all for equal rights, equal pay for equal work, and all that good stuff. Nobody should be at a disadvantage because they are a woman, or a man. We can have all the good stuff and still recognise that men and women are different on a biological level and that translates into different interests and predispositions. Feminists who want all women to compete in the victim Olympics are not doing women any favours at all. They attack masculinity with incredible bile and venom and at the same time they undermine femininity. Hard to know what their endgame is.. Do they want androgynous society?

Sand

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I've read some of this "red pill" stuff before and in all honesty, it's (bar some of the more the autistic terminology), just common sense stuff that everyone knows or should know, siphoned through some snake oil bull****.

Men like young beautiful women.

Women like tall men.

Don't be a pushover etc.

Not exactly mind blowing hidden knowledge like.

Id say its just generalisations. Like all the best lies, there is a ring of truth to it. But then it fails. That's when rankings, rules and pecking orders at the feeding trough, complicated charts, ladders and all sorts of nonsense get trotted out by morons.

Because people like to identify patterns and to focus on certain things to the exclusion of the wider whole. It is how our brains work, it is how optical illusions and even pickpockets trick us, and its extremely comforting to believe there is a pattern, there are rules, it is predictable. Believers in that nonsense need to believe everyone is predictable. Figure out what star sign, or gender or personality 'type' they are and you can understand them. That is safe. The idea that people are individuals with their own preferences and beliefs that do not feed into easy categories terrifies them.