NATION

PASSWORD

Revisiting Interesting Incel Perspectives.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 6:44 pm

Primitive Communism wrote:
Galloism wrote:Given it's specifically allowed or banned based solely on the sex of the child, I don't see how it's NOT quite specifically sexism to say "hey, this child has bodily autonomy rights because of their sex, but this child does not because of their sex".


Primarily because children don't have bodily autonomy rights at all. Children, in fact, have less rights than any other demographic and essentially constitute a slave caste.

But that's another discussion for another time.


This isn't actually true. It's true their bodily autonomy rights rest in the care of a guardian, who must exercise due caution and care in exercising them.

You can't just amputate a child's foot for no reason, for example. We say they have rights, and that's child abuse.

You also can't amputate their labia. But you CAN amputate their foreskin. Even though it's essentially the same structure and the only difference is sex.

Yet it wasn't women who circumcised those babies, nor was it women who manufactured those creams, nor was it women who sold those creams, nor was it women who advertised said creams to women, nor was it women who decided they needed these creams because it wasn't women who decided the beauty standards that men held them to.

This is textbook "missing the forest for the trees".

Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.

The fact that you think women can't work or make their own decisions because of their sex is *deeply* misogynistic and hateful towards women.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Stellar Colonies
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6535
Founded: Mar 27, 2017
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Stellar Colonies » Mon May 29, 2023 6:46 pm

Galloism wrote:
Primitive Communism wrote:
Primarily because children don't have bodily autonomy rights at all. Children, in fact, have less rights than any other demographic and essentially constitute a slave caste.

But that's another discussion for another time.


This isn't actually true. It's true their bodily autonomy rights rest in the care of a guardian, who must exercise due caution and care in exercising them.

You can't just amputate a child's foot for no reason, for example. We say they have rights, and that's child abuse.

You also can't amputate their labia. But you CAN amputate their foreskin. Even though it's essentially the same structure and the only difference is sex.

Yet it wasn't women who circumcised those babies, nor was it women who manufactured those creams, nor was it women who sold those creams, nor was it women who advertised said creams to women, nor was it women who decided they needed these creams because it wasn't women who decided the beauty standards that men held them to.

This is textbook "missing the forest for the trees".

Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.

The fact that you think women can't work or make their own decisions because of their sex is *deeply* misogynistic and hateful towards women.

Is this what you mean when you refer to an actor/object fallacy?
Last edited by Stellar Colonies on Mon May 29, 2023 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Floofybit wrote:Your desired society should be one where you are submissive and controlled
Techocracy101010 wrote:If she goes on a rampage those saggy wonders are as deadly as nunchucks
Parmistan wrote:It's not ALWAYS acceptable when we do it, but it's MORE acceptable when we do it.
Theodorable wrote:Jihad will win.
Distruzio wrote:All marriage outside the Church is gay marriage.
Khardsland wrote:Terrorism in its original definition is a good thing.
San Lumen wrote:If he wins Harris should tear up his ballots on the house floor causing a constitutional crisis.
I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.

North Californian.
Stellar Colonies is a loose galactic confederacy.

The Confederacy & the WA.

Add 1200 years.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 6:50 pm

Stellar Colonies wrote:Is this what you mean when you refer to an actor/object fallacy?

It's an example of it. These series of posts very quickly devolved into the normal paradigm:

A lot of people assume all the choices are made by men, and then even the choices that are made by women are made because the women are only doing what the men make them do. Men are actors and every decision they make is theirs, regardless of circumstance or situation. At best, circumstance and situation can mitigate the severity (think, "I see you did that, and I don't agree, but I understand.")

Women on the other hand are presumed to be objects only acted upon by others except in very unusual cases. It is assumed, outright, that they have to buy a specific genital-harvesting face cream because some man made her do so, when there's literally no evidence of such. And the only way to get out of it is to do a "spherical woman in a vacuum buying face cream" cognitive theoretical, and even that's only in theory.

Now, the weird carve out (which Neut pointed out to me at one point) is the act of sex itself. Sex itself literally adopts the exact opposite paradigm for no reason whatsoever.
Last edited by Galloism on Mon May 29, 2023 6:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Kenowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 319
Founded: Nov 19, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Kenowa » Mon May 29, 2023 7:05 pm

Equai wrote:
Juansonia wrote:Have you heard of conscription?

In places where there is conscription for men only women who believe in military also want to be a part of it on equal stage as men and not as nurses. But, when we talk about general conscription I am against that for both men and women.
However conscription is more discrimination against women since they are mostly excluded from it and it picks up only men because of toxic masculinity and patriarchy that as someone said above makes men who don't fall in the norms of it victims too.

Sexism goes both ways and feminism ignoring it when they think is working in favour of women is shooting their own foot. Many men and women are realizing that and that's why the "I'm for equalty, not for feminism" movement is so big.

You are only seeing the face of the female side, ignoring that the victim in this case are most arguably men as they are the ones sent to some damn desert to risk their lives, kill people, lose limbs and catch some severe trauma on the way. It's as ridiculous as if I said that female slut shaming is misandric because it assumes that men have no self control and will harrass a woman just because of how they are dressed.
✿ Co Dimokratiá Tde Kenowa ★
"Prosperity Through Community"

He/Him, 17, Apparently a fascist, Argentinean
“We must create a kind of globalization that works for everyone and not just for a few.”
Nestor Kirchner

User avatar
Primitive Communism
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 04, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby Primitive Communism » Mon May 29, 2023 7:12 pm

Galloism wrote:Sure, but that's not the same as valued. Until they strike.


Striking does not make those jobs valued, rather it reminds the capitalists why they are valued.

Black women are treated *better* than white men when it comes to the justice system. Quite clearly and obviously. So in point of fact, since black women are *privileged* compared to *white men* when it comes to the justice system treatment (as shown in the studies above), what does that mean?

Then why do men face heavier sentences for being men?

Why do men face higher killings by police that women do not for being men?


Women in general are treated differently by the justice system not out of favoritism but out of doubt for their agency and capability. Women received lesser punishment because they're perceived as being overly-emotionally and less capable of reason. They are pitied for perceived stupidity and lack of self-control. Women are considered less threatening because they are considered weaker.

Sex has a role 6 times the size of race when it comes to sentencing. I can't be overestimating it by comparing it to race when the effect is six times larger than race.


You are overestimating it because you are trying to see something that isn't there. You are deliberately driving down the wrong side of the road; I don't know how else to explain this to you. Because you refuse to even consider the woman's situation, the woman's perspective, all you can see is imaginary persecution. It is the mistreatment of *women* by a patriarchal society that is the reason for these disparities, and you cannot see this because you've deluded yourself into believing that women are somehow running our society - which is such an absurd lie I don't even know where to begin.

The MRA movement is a misinformation campaign run by misogynists and conmen who want to revert the progress made by Feminists either to enforce misogynistic gender roles or to make money. It's just another attempt by the rich to divide workers along arbitrary lines so that we fight each other instead of them. They're doing the same thing with BLM and Wokeism, they did the same thing with Communism and the broader labor movement, they did the same thing with Abolitionists. You're being lied to and deceived, intentionally, to sabotage the fight for women's rights. It's not to your benefit, and you're not helping anyone. The way society treats men is not a consequence of Feminism, female empowerment, or misandry - it's a consequence of misogyny and patriarchy.

They're typically not seen as unmasculine for having been raped by a woman. In fact, they're congratulated, told they're lucky, and that she must have thought he was "hot".


This is from the perspective of men, and it is the perception of a masculine society. I was talking about the justice system, specifically. Don't try to shift the goalposts.

If they press, then they're told it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because that's been the narrative for fuck ever.


...yes, because only women can be raped. That is the misogynist view: only women are weak enough to be raped, and being raped is a sign of weakness. A "real man" thus cannot be raped, save for by another man, because only a man can be strong enough to rape a woman. This is all very obvious and I don't understand how you haven't figured it out on your own by now.

In fact, to have a woman aggressively sexually take a man is, by default, seen as a symbol of the man's masculine prowess. He's seen as *more* masculine as a result. This makes the man very uncomfortable, because although everyone else sees it that way, he does not on the inside. He sees that something has gone horribly wrong, but due to indoctrination of all the things above, he often can't put a finger on what it is, and won't call it rape - even if he's passed out, drugged, or 12 years old.

Now, where that takes a turn is if he tries to report it. I often recommend they take a lawyer if they go to the police, because one of the most common results is police to threaten them with jail or a fine for wasting police time, because they often don't believe it's even physically possible. It's not questioning his manliness - in fact, quite the reverse. It's taking his manliness, amplifying it, and using it to protect his rapist.


Yes, and again that is because society does not perceive women as being strong enough to perform a rape on a man. He sees it as wrong, knows it is wrong, but cannot and will not call it what it is out of shame. He cannot conceptualize that he has been raped because - again - only women can be raped. Only women are weak enough to be raped. To be raped is effeminate; and only another man has the power to emasculate a man.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Your examples are only proving me right, not wrong. Your inability to see them as they are is incredibly frustrating.

The results affirm that blackness and masculinity are correlated. Black men are seen as more masculine than white men, just as black women are seen as more masculine than white women.

And, quelle surprise, the discrimination that we see occurring based on sex (60% bonus to prison time for being male) carries into discrimination based on race.


No, that isn't what they're saying. You. Are. Reading. Them. Wrong.

I've already explained why, and how, but you're deliberately ignoring me without even a hint of consideration. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. But thank you for proving my earlier point that the perspectives and experiences of women are disregarded without hesitation, as you have very aptly demonstrated.
going after that sweet sweet DOS

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 7:24 pm

Primitive Communism wrote:
Galloism wrote:Sure, but that's not the same as valued. Until they strike.


Striking does not make those jobs valued, rather it reminds the capitalists why they are valued.


I think this is a dead end, but ultimately, you're using some definition of valued at odds with the common usage of the word valued. Maybe you mean economically (as in, "a thing people will pay for").

Black women are treated *better* than white men when it comes to the justice system. Quite clearly and obviously. So in point of fact, since black women are *privileged* compared to *white men* when it comes to the justice system treatment (as shown in the studies above), what does that mean?

Then why do men face heavier sentences for being men?

Why do men face higher killings by police that women do not for being men?


Women in general are treated differently by the justice system not out of favoritism but out of doubt for their agency and capability. Women received lesser punishment because they're perceived as being overly-emotionally and less capable of reason. They are pitied for perceived stupidity and lack of self-control. Women are considered less threatening because they are considered weaker.


So, they get the benefit of that discrimination, while men get the brunt of the adverse discrimination.

Sex has a role 6 times the size of race when it comes to sentencing. I can't be overestimating it by comparing it to race when the effect is six times larger than race.


You are overestimating it because you are trying to see something that isn't there. You are deliberately driving down the wrong side of the road; I don't know how else to explain this to you. Because you refuse to even consider the woman's situation, the woman's perspective, all you can see is imaginary persecution. It is the mistreatment of *women* by a patriarchal society that is the reason for these disparities, and you cannot see this because you've deluded yourself into believing that women are somehow running our society - which is such an absurd lie I don't even know where to begin.


I am considering the woman's perspective - but you are not considering the man's in any of this. This paragraph is 100% projection when you completely disregard the mistreatment of men by society.

The MRA movement


Swing and a miss. Not an MRA.

They're typically not seen as unmasculine for having been raped by a woman. In fact, they're congratulated, told they're lucky, and that she must have thought he was "hot".


This is from the perspective of men, and it is the perception of a masculine society. I was talking about the justice system, specifically. Don't try to shift the goalposts.


I'm talking about the justice system. Specifically.

Galloism wrote:
Fahran wrote:I don't think the police qualify as a feminist institution, especially not given the prevalence of men and domestic abusers in that profession. But, yeah, it's not a nice hypothetical and one has to wonder why the hypothetical leaps immediately to hitting and hurting women.

As a former police officer, I can tell you all our training regarding rape and violence came from feminist organizations, and, and I didn't find this weird at the time (not til much later), it all insisted that women only commit violence in self defense, and if I found a case where a woman committed domestic violence, it meant the man was an abuser and should be arrested.

Unironically. This didn't seem weird and was presented as normal.

When it comes to sex crimes, it was always insisted upon that sex crimes are only committed by men, largely against women. This was accepted as normal.

This indoctrination was so fierce, that when I was drugged and raped by a woman, I didn't know it was rape.

I thought it was theft because she also stole some stuff from me. And indeed, the detective who took my statement recorded it the same way.

I don't know if police qualify as a "feminist institution", but all the training in this regard is given by feminist institutions. It's also avowedly sexist.



If they press, then they're told it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because that's been the narrative for fuck ever.


...yes, because only women can be raped. That is the misogynist view:


It's the view we were trained with as police officers by the feminist organizations. If this is a misogynistic view, it is the one open endorsed by the feminist orgs that train our police on sex crimes and domestic violence.

only women are weak enough to be raped, and being raped is a sign of weakness. A "real man" thus cannot be raped, save for by another man, because only a man can be strong enough to rape a woman. This is all very obvious and I don't understand how you haven't figured it out on your own by now.


Interestingly, you were buying into the same myth earlier - that women don't rape men, when the majority of men who are raped are raped by women. Now, graciously, and to your credit, you accepted the data (although then you tried to downplay it and get the conversation back over to female victims again), but you have no doubt been guilty of thinking for years that only women are weak enough to be raped, or are at least too weak to rape men.

In fact, to have a woman aggressively sexually take a man is, by default, seen as a symbol of the man's masculine prowess. He's seen as *more* masculine as a result. This makes the man very uncomfortable, because although everyone else sees it that way, he does not on the inside. He sees that something has gone horribly wrong, but due to indoctrination of all the things above, he often can't put a finger on what it is, and won't call it rape - even if he's passed out, drugged, or 12 years old.

Now, where that takes a turn is if he tries to report it. I often recommend they take a lawyer if they go to the police, because one of the most common results is police to threaten them with jail or a fine for wasting police time, because they often don't believe it's even physically possible. It's not questioning his manliness - in fact, quite the reverse. It's taking his manliness, amplifying it, and using it to protect his rapist.


Yes, and again that is because society does not perceive women as being strong enough to perform a rape on a man. He sees it as wrong, knows it is wrong, but cannot and will not call it what it is out of shame. He cannot conceptualize that he has been raped because - again - only women can be raped. Only women are weak enough to be raped. To be raped is effeminate; and only another man has the power to emasculate a man.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Your examples are only proving me right, not wrong. Your inability to see them as they are is incredibly frustrating.


Exactly - it's the masculinity that's the source of his oppression, and people's perception of it.

The results affirm that blackness and masculinity are correlated. Black men are seen as more masculine than white men, just as black women are seen as more masculine than white women.

And, quelle surprise, the discrimination that we see occurring based on sex (60% bonus to prison time for being male) carries into discrimination based on race.


No, that isn't what they're saying. You. Are. Reading. Them. Wrong.

I've already explained why, and how, but you're deliberately ignoring me without even a hint of consideration. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again. But thank you for proving my earlier point that the perspectives and experiences of women are disregarded without hesitation, as you have very aptly demonstrated.

Look, you're just making stuff up now. Stop wasting my time with bullshit.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Primitive Communism
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 04, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby Primitive Communism » Mon May 29, 2023 7:42 pm

Galloism wrote:Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.


Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Women do not control society. Even if every, single government official was a woman this would not erase patriarchy any more than an entire government of blacks would erase white supremacy. It's why token minority appointments never solve anything. You really don't understand how these things are baked into the very foundations of our institutions and societies. This is why revolution is preferable to reform: you can repair and renovate the foundations again and again but the rot will always be there.

It doesn't matter if everyone involved in these schemes were women. The people at the top, at the very top profiting off of all it, are men. It's the men who run the hospitals, the men who run the factories, the men who run the stores, the men who run the media, the men who decide they prefer women with cream on their faces to women without them - and the women take steps to attract them as a consequence. It's not that women don't have agency; it's that agency is irrelevant when you're a second class citizen, which is what women ultimately are no matter how much you want to insist otherwise.

A lot of people assume all the choices are made by men, and then even the choices that are made by women are made because the women are only doing what the men make them do. Men are actors and every decision they make is theirs, regardless of circumstance or situation. At best, circumstance and situation can mitigate the severity (think, "I see you did that, and I don't agree, but I understand.")

Women on the other hand are presumed to be objects only acted upon by others except in very unusual cases. It is assumed, outright, that they have to buy a specific genital-harvesting face cream because some man made her do so, when there's literally no evidence of such. And the only way to get out of it is to do a "spherical woman in a vacuum buying face cream" cognitive theoretical, and even that's only in theory.


No, that's not how it works. Men don't have to "force" women to do anything to control them. Male-dominated society explicitly conditions women to be submissive to men, to the point that subconsciously women will debase themselves for men and do whatever they think they have to in order to attract a man's attention. It is socially ingrained. Choice doesn't enter into it. The choices of women are, in a patriarchal society, influenced by the pressure of what men want. What women want isn't considered; they are told what they want, and expected to conform to it. This is why lesbian feminism was such an important part of the entire movement - it consciously rejected the wants of men, because the women had no interest in appealing to men at all and so had no trouble resisting the conditioning to serve the interests and wants of men.

It isn't that women have no choice or agency, it's that these things are suppressed by misogynistic society. The woman is expected to concern herself only with what men want and is conditioned to think about the man's needs first. The beauty standards of women, which often drive girls into unhealthy eating habits that threaten their very lives, are pushed on them by men. Sleazy beauty mags are shoved into their faces and they are told that these unrealistic, photoshopped bodies of supermodels are what men want in women. Victoria's Secret models, PlayBoy bunnies, beauty pageants, strip clubs, porn, Hollywood movies, even just basic cable television - all of which is principally run by men - enforce these standards until they are mentally accepted without question. You can apply this to virtually everything in our society.

Men don't need to make laws that restrict women; they can stand on the pulpit and say "God hates abortion!" and god-fearing women will agree without question, in much the same way a slave is conditioned to obey their master. They have a choice, they have agency, and the patriarchal nature of our culture and social values does everything in it's power to make women believe they don't. It tells women what to believe, what to want, what to do, what to say, what to think. It does this to men too, and those men who can't cope with what patriarchy asks of it are ostracized just as women who refuse to conform are ostracized. Only those who conform - masculine men, men who can dominate women and even other men - benefit from this arrangement. The 'weak' or 'effeminate' man does not. The gay man, who is seen as submissive and effeminate, does not. The black man, who isn't even regarded as human, does not. The transman, who is seen as a woman masquerading as a man, does not. Et cetera.
going after that sweet sweet DOS

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 7:49 pm

Primitive Communism wrote:
Galloism wrote:Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.


Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Women do not control society.


Women have just as much influence in our society as men do. Arguably more, if we take into account the political power disparity favoring women in our society (women make up quite a bit more of the voters, are more politically active, and have explicit lobbies which men do not).

Until you stop diminishing and degrading women down to the level of mindless objects, and start respecting their input and choices into society, we're pretty much done. It's very hard to even talk with someone who thinks half the population has no input into our society or capability to act within it when discussing systems of power and oppression. Everything after this sentence is just more of this:

Galloism wrote:
Stellar Colonies wrote:Is this what you mean when you refer to an actor/object fallacy?

It's an example of it. These series of posts very quickly devolved into the normal paradigm:

A lot of people assume all the choices are made by men, and then even the choices that are made by women are made because the women are only doing what the men make them do. Men are actors and every decision they make is theirs, regardless of circumstance or situation. At best, circumstance and situation can mitigate the severity (think, "I see you did that, and I don't agree, but I understand.")

Women on the other hand are presumed to be objects only acted upon by others except in very unusual cases. It is assumed, outright, that they have to buy a specific genital-harvesting face cream because some man made her do so, when there's literally no evidence of such. And the only way to get out of it is to do a "spherical woman in a vacuum buying face cream" cognitive theoretical, and even that's only in theory.

Now, the weird carve out (which Neut pointed out to me at one point) is the act of sex itself. Sex itself literally adopts the exact opposite paradigm for no reason whatsoever.
Last edited by Galloism on Mon May 29, 2023 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The Sherpa Empire
Minister
 
Posts: 3224
Founded: Jan 15, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Sherpa Empire » Mon May 29, 2023 7:55 pm

Galloism wrote:
Yet it wasn't women who circumcised those babies, nor was it women who manufactured those creams, nor was it women who sold those creams, nor was it women who advertised said creams to women, nor was it women who decided they needed these creams because it wasn't women who decided the beauty standards that men held them to.

This is textbook "missing the forest for the trees".

Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.

The fact that you think women can't work or make their own decisions because of their sex is *deeply* misogynistic and hateful towards women.


Any chance yall could get back to the bodily autonomy issue? That was the original reason why you've been banging on about circumcisions for more than a decade. It's not really about beauty creams. The manufacture of cosmetics is not why circumcisions are done and it's not the root of why you took issue with them.

Some people aren't happy with a medical procedure that was done to them. You want to the medical community to rethink how freely they perform that procedure. Okay. There's no reason to overcomplicate the argument beyond that.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།
Following new legislation in The Sherpa Empire, life is short but human kindness is endless.
Alternate IC names: Sherpaland, Pharak

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 7:59 pm

The Sherpa Empire wrote:
Galloism wrote:

Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.

The fact that you think women can't work or make their own decisions because of their sex is *deeply* misogynistic and hateful towards women.


Any chance yall could get back to the bodily autonomy issue? That was the original reason why you've been banging on about circumcisions for more than a decade. It's not really about beauty creams. The manufacture of cosmetics is not why circumcisions are done and it's not the root of why you took issue with them.

Some people aren't happy with a medical procedure that was done to them. You want to the medical community to rethink how freely they perform that procedure. Okay. There's no reason to overcomplicate the argument beyond that.

Yes.

Originally originally, it was probably a religious practice that came about for some unknown reason.

Originally *modern*, it was actually intended to make men feel pain and therefore not masturbate ever again. Carbonic acid applied directly to the clitoris was supposed to do the same thing for girls. Thank you Dr Kellogg. Yes, the cereal guy. History is wild.

The latter part didn't really stick around (which is good) but the former did. Its basis though isn't in religion, or medicine, or cleanliness - it came about as a common thing due to intending, and purposefully, causing pain to children for the sake of causing pain to children. In this original iteration, it was (roughly) sex neutral, but we decided to stop doing it to girls and... keep doing it to boys.

But uh, that's not discrimination! At least according to some people.
Last edited by Galloism on Mon May 29, 2023 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Primitive Communism
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 04, 2023
Ex-Nation

Postby Primitive Communism » Mon May 29, 2023 8:00 pm

Galloism wrote:So, they get the benefit of that discrimination, while men get the brunt of the adverse discrimination.


It is not a 'benefit' because it does not end at the court room, nor does it begin there. Take it to it's most logical conclusion and you have tomboys in sanitariums and police officers rolling their eyes at rape victims.

I am considering the woman's perspective - but you are not considering the man's in any of this. This paragraph is 100% projection when you completely disregard the mistreatment of men by society.


I am a transgender woman. I have lived as a man. I already know the man's perspective, and it comes from a position of privilege. I know because I held it myself once. No matter what you may think about how society treats men even un-masculine men are treated better than women. I can attest to this personally, and have met plenty of women with far greater horror stories to tell than any you've told tonight.

Swing and a miss. Not an MRA.


You may not sit in their shade but you still eat from the fruit of their tree. You're an MRA in mind if not literally.

I'm talking about the justice system. Specifically.


You explicitly just described a very social and informal setting; that is not the justice system. Go lie to someone gullible enough to believe you.

It's the view we were trained with as police officers by the feminist organizations. If this is a misogynistic view, it is the one open endorsed by the feminist orgs that train our police on sex crimes and domestic violence.


Are you referring to the police forces which regularly commit sexual violence against their own female officers, in addition to female suspects, and go home to beat their wives? I'm sure these models of gender equality are really taking feminist lessons to heart.

Interestingly, you were buying into the same myth earlier - that women don't rape men, when the majority of men who are raped are raped by women. Now, graciously, and to your credit, you accepted the data (although then you tried to downplay it and get the conversation back over to female victims again), but you have no doubt been guilty of thinking for years that only women are weak enough to be raped, or are at least too weak to rape men.


At no point did I believe anything of the sort. I doubted that women constituted the majority of rapists for men because men, in general, constitute the majority of rapists period - not because I thought men couldn't be raped by women or that only women were weak enough to be raped. You're putting words in my mouth and I've just about had enough of this endless torrent of frothing misogyny you've been spewing as you try to downplay female victims and weaponize male victims of patriarchy as victims of a mythical misandry which only exists in your imagination.

Exactly - it's the masculinity that's the source of his oppression, and people's perception of it.


This is the only explicitly truthful thing you've said so far. But of course, you perceive it in such a warped way as to advance a misogynistic agenda without even realizing it.

I've had enough of this. I feel sorry for the women in your life.
going after that sweet sweet DOS

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44130
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby New haven america » Mon May 29, 2023 8:04 pm

Primitive Communism wrote:
Galloism wrote:Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.


Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Women do not control society. Even if every, single government official was a woman this would not erase patriarchy any more than an entire government of blacks would erase white supremacy. It's why token minority appointments never solve anything. You really don't understand how these things are baked into the very foundations of our institutions and societies. This is why revolution is preferable to reform: you can repair and renovate the foundations again and again but the rot will always be there.

It doesn't matter if everyone involved in these schemes were women. The people at the top, at the very top profiting off of all it, are men. It's the men who run the hospitals, the men who run the factories, the men who run the stores, the men who run the media, the men who decide they prefer women with cream on their faces to women without them - and the women take steps to attract them as a consequence. It's not that women don't have agency; it's that agency is irrelevant when you're a second class citizen, which is what women ultimately are no matter how much you want to insist otherwise.

A lot of people assume all the choices are made by men, and then even the choices that are made by women are made because the women are only doing what the men make them do. Men are actors and every decision they make is theirs, regardless of circumstance or situation. At best, circumstance and situation can mitigate the severity (think, "I see you did that, and I don't agree, but I understand.")

Women on the other hand are presumed to be objects only acted upon by others except in very unusual cases. It is assumed, outright, that they have to buy a specific genital-harvesting face cream because some man made her do so, when there's literally no evidence of such. And the only way to get out of it is to do a "spherical woman in a vacuum buying face cream" cognitive theoretical, and even that's only in theory.


No, that's not how it works. Men don't have to "force" women to do anything to control them. Male-dominated society explicitly conditions women to be submissive to men, to the point that subconsciously women will debase themselves for men and do whatever they think they have to in order to attract a man's attention. It is socially ingrained. Choice doesn't enter into it. The choices of women are, in a patriarchal society, influenced by the pressure of what men want. What women want isn't considered; they are told what they want, and expected to conform to it. This is why lesbian feminism was such an important part of the entire movement - it consciously rejected the wants of men, because the women had no interest in appealing to men at all and so had no trouble resisting the conditioning to serve the interests and wants of men.

It isn't that women have no choice or agency, it's that these things are suppressed by misogynistic society. The woman is expected to concern herself only with what men want and is conditioned to think about the man's needs first. The beauty standards of women, which often drive girls into unhealthy eating habits that threaten their very lives, are pushed on them by men. Sleazy beauty mags are shoved into their faces and they are told that these unrealistic, photoshopped bodies of supermodels are what men want in women. Victoria's Secret models, PlayBoy bunnies, beauty pageants, strip clubs, porn, Hollywood movies, even just basic cable television - all of which is principally run by men - enforce these standards until they are mentally accepted without question. You can apply this to virtually everything in our society.

Men don't need to make laws that restrict women; they can stand on the pulpit and say "God hates abortion!" and god-fearing women will agree without question, in much the same way a slave is conditioned to obey their master. They have a choice, they have agency, and the patriarchal nature of our culture and social values does everything in it's power to make women believe they don't. It tells women what to believe, what to want, what to do, what to say, what to think. It does this to men too, and those men who can't cope with what patriarchy asks of it are ostracized just as women who refuse to conform are ostracized. Only those who conform - masculine men, men who can dominate women and even other men - benefit from this arrangement. The 'weak' or 'effeminate' man does not. The gay man, who is seen as submissive and effeminate, does not. The black man, who isn't even regarded as human, does not. The transman, who is seen as a woman masquerading as a man, does not. Et cetera.

You have very low opinions of women tbh.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2024

That's all folks~

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 8:05 pm

Primitive Communism wrote:I've had enough of this. I feel sorry for the women in your life.

I'm not sure why.

I respect them and their decisions, and don't amorphously think they're blinded and enslaved by the patriarchy and are objects only acted upon. And that makes me different than what you posted here. Your hatred, given your repeated posts which debase and denigrate women, and show utter disregard of men, is a compliment to all true seekers of equality.

I take your hatred as a badge of honor.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The Sherpa Empire
Minister
 
Posts: 3224
Founded: Jan 15, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Sherpa Empire » Mon May 29, 2023 8:15 pm

Primitive Communism wrote:
Galloism wrote:Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.


Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Women do not control society. Even if every, single government official was a woman this would not erase patriarchy any more than an entire government of blacks would erase white supremacy. It's why token minority appointments never solve anything. You really don't understand how these things are baked into the very foundations of our institutions and societies. This is why revolution is preferable to reform: you can repair and renovate the foundations again and again but the rot will always be there.

It doesn't matter if everyone involved in these schemes were women. The people at the top, at the very top profiting off of all it, are men. It's the men who run the hospitals, the men who run the factories, the men who run the stores, the men who run the media, the men who decide they prefer women with cream on their faces to women without them - and the women take steps to attract them as a consequence. It's not that women don't have agency; it's that agency is irrelevant when you're a second class citizen, which is what women ultimately are no matter how much you want to insist otherwise.

A lot of people assume all the choices are made by men, and then even the choices that are made by women are made because the women are only doing what the men make them do. Men are actors and every decision they make is theirs, regardless of circumstance or situation. At best, circumstance and situation can mitigate the severity (think, "I see you did that, and I don't agree, but I understand.")

Women on the other hand are presumed to be objects only acted upon by others except in very unusual cases. It is assumed, outright, that they have to buy a specific genital-harvesting face cream because some man made her do so, when there's literally no evidence of such. And the only way to get out of it is to do a "spherical woman in a vacuum buying face cream" cognitive theoretical, and even that's only in theory.


No, that's not how it works. Men don't have to "force" women to do anything to control them. Male-dominated society explicitly conditions women to be submissive to men, to the point that subconsciously women will debase themselves for men and do whatever they think they have to in order to attract a man's attention. It is socially ingrained. Choice doesn't enter into it. The choices of women are, in a patriarchal society, influenced by the pressure of what men want. What women want isn't considered; they are told what they want, and expected to conform to it. This is why lesbian feminism was such an important part of the entire movement - it consciously rejected the wants of men, because the women had no interest in appealing to men at all and so had no trouble resisting the conditioning to serve the interests and wants of men.

It isn't that women have no choice or agency, it's that these things are suppressed by misogynistic society. The woman is expected to concern herself only with what men want and is conditioned to think about the man's needs first. The beauty standards of women, which often drive girls into unhealthy eating habits that threaten their very lives, are pushed on them by men. Sleazy beauty mags are shoved into their faces and they are told that these unrealistic, photoshopped bodies of supermodels are what men want in women. Victoria's Secret models, PlayBoy bunnies, beauty pageants, strip clubs, porn, Hollywood movies, even just basic cable television - all of which is principally run by men - enforce these standards until they are mentally accepted without question. You can apply this to virtually everything in our society.

Men don't need to make laws that restrict women; they can stand on the pulpit and say "God hates abortion!" and god-fearing women will agree without question, in much the same way a slave is conditioned to obey their master. They have a choice, they have agency, and the patriarchal nature of our culture and social values does everything in it's power to make women believe they don't. It tells women what to believe, what to want, what to do, what to say, what to think. It does this to men too, and those men who can't cope with what patriarchy asks of it are ostracized just as women who refuse to conform are ostracized. Only those who conform - masculine men, men who can dominate women and even other men - benefit from this arrangement. The 'weak' or 'effeminate' man does not. The gay man, who is seen as submissive and effeminate, does not. The black man, who isn't even regarded as human, does not. The transman, who is seen as a woman masquerading as a man, does not. Et cetera.


No dude.

We do still live in a patriarchal society, but that isn't an immutable fact that could never change no matter how many women were in office.

Unhealthy beauty standards are a problem, but they are not exclusively created by men. What women think men want is not always the same as what men actually want.

And like Gallo said, you're just denying women's agency too much. You've dug too deep into your own narrative.

On a side note, nice flag. I see that flag a lot since I moved to upstate NY.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།
Following new legislation in The Sherpa Empire, life is short but human kindness is endless.
Alternate IC names: Sherpaland, Pharak

User avatar
Techocracy101010
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: May 04, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Techocracy101010 » Mon May 29, 2023 8:31 pm

The Sherpa Empire wrote:
Primitive Communism wrote:
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Women do not control society. Even if every, single government official was a woman this would not erase patriarchy any more than an entire government of blacks would erase white supremacy. It's why token minority appointments never solve anything. You really don't understand how these things are baked into the very foundations of our institutions and societies. This is why revolution is preferable to reform: you can repair and renovate the foundations again and again but the rot will always be there.

It doesn't matter if everyone involved in these schemes were women. The people at the top, at the very top profiting off of all it, are men. It's the men who run the hospitals, the men who run the factories, the men who run the stores, the men who run the media, the men who decide they prefer women with cream on their faces to women without them - and the women take steps to attract them as a consequence. It's not that women don't have agency; it's that agency is irrelevant when you're a second class citizen, which is what women ultimately are no matter how much you want to insist otherwise.



No, that's not how it works. Men don't have to "force" women to do anything to control them. Male-dominated society explicitly conditions women to be submissive to men, to the point that subconsciously women will debase themselves for men and do whatever they think they have to in order to attract a man's attention. It is socially ingrained. Choice doesn't enter into it. The choices of women are, in a patriarchal society, influenced by the pressure of what men want. What women want isn't considered; they are told what they want, and expected to conform to it. This is why lesbian feminism was such an important part of the entire movement - it consciously rejected the wants of men, because the women had no interest in appealing to men at all and so had no trouble resisting the conditioning to serve the interests and wants of men.

It isn't that women have no choice or agency, it's that these things are suppressed by misogynistic society. The woman is expected to concern herself only with what men want and is conditioned to think about the man's needs first. The beauty standards of women, which often drive girls into unhealthy eating habits that threaten their very lives, are pushed on them by men. Sleazy beauty mags are shoved into their faces and they are told that these unrealistic, photoshopped bodies of supermodels are what men want in women. Victoria's Secret models, PlayBoy bunnies, beauty pageants, strip clubs, porn, Hollywood movies, even just basic cable television - all of which is principally run by men - enforce these standards until they are mentally accepted without question. You can apply this to virtually everything in our society.

Men don't need to make laws that restrict women; they can stand on the pulpit and say "God hates abortion!" and god-fearing women will agree without question, in much the same way a slave is conditioned to obey their master. They have a choice, they have agency, and the patriarchal nature of our culture and social values does everything in it's power to make women believe they don't. It tells women what to believe, what to want, what to do, what to say, what to think. It does this to men too, and those men who can't cope with what patriarchy asks of it are ostracized just as women who refuse to conform are ostracized. Only those who conform - masculine men, men who can dominate women and even other men - benefit from this arrangement. The 'weak' or 'effeminate' man does not. The gay man, who is seen as submissive and effeminate, does not. The black man, who isn't even regarded as human, does not. The transman, who is seen as a woman masquerading as a man, does not. Et cetera.


No dude.

We do still live in a patriarchal society, but that isn't an immutable fact that could never change no matter how many women were in office.

Unhealthy beauty standards are a problem, but they are not exclusively created by men. What women think men want is not always the same as what men actually want.

And like Gallo said, you're just denying women's agency too much. You've dug too deep into your own narrative.

On a side note, nice flag. I see that flag a lot since I moved to upstate NY.

Patriarchy is a myth a construction to explain multifaceted historical events and dynamics it quite frankly cannot. Firstly the idea of abolishing hierarchy cannot work within the human species it is not a taught behavior but an innate one the only way to remove it would be through ignorance . Even if it was true there are too many memetic contaminants in the world and as such a human such as this could only exist in their protected bubble . Secondly humans realize good performance vs bad its one of the thing our ape brains do because it was vital for surviving to reproduce. Let a bunch of kids make a kickball team they instantly choose the kids they know are better and thats not something they are taught they just know it causes good outcome. Anyway were fucked up hyper violent hairless chimps i doubt we will gave a happy history at the end of it all
Last edited by Techocracy101010 on Mon May 29, 2023 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alternate Garza
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 182
Founded: Oct 17, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Alternate Garza » Mon May 29, 2023 8:54 pm

Techocracy101010 wrote:
The Sherpa Empire wrote:
No dude.

We do still live in a patriarchal society, but that isn't an immutable fact that could never change no matter how many women were in office.

Unhealthy beauty standards are a problem, but they are not exclusively created by men. What women think men want is not always the same as what men actually want.

And like Gallo said, you're just denying women's agency too much. You've dug too deep into your own narrative.

On a side note, nice flag. I see that flag a lot since I moved to upstate NY.

Patriarchy is a myth a construction to explain multifaceted historical events and dynamics it quite frankly cannot. Firstly the idea of abolishing hierarchy cannot work within the human species it is not a taught behavior but an innate one the only way to remove it would be through ignorance . Even if it was true there are too many memetic contaminants in the world and as such a human such as this could only exist in their protected bubble . Secondly humans realize good performance vs bad its one of the thing our ape brains do because it was vital for surviving to reproduce. Let a bunch of kids make a kickball team they instantly choose the kids they know are better and thats not something they are taught they just know it causes good outcome. Anyway were fucked up hyper violent hairless chimps i doubt we will gave a happy history at the end of it all


Yeah, patriarchy ended in the West some time ago. It's not really a myth in other parts of the world, though. It's still very real there.
There need to be more choices than "I'm a Republican out to utterly ruin the working class" and "I'm a Democrat, also out to ruin the working class, but in rainbow font." - me
The Lincoln War Department used to prosecute war profiteers. Now they make public policy through their elected lackeys in Congress and the White House.

User avatar
The Sherpa Empire
Minister
 
Posts: 3224
Founded: Jan 15, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Sherpa Empire » Mon May 29, 2023 9:20 pm

Alternate Garza wrote:
Techocracy101010 wrote:Patriarchy is a myth a construction to explain multifaceted historical events and dynamics it quite frankly cannot. Firstly the idea of abolishing hierarchy cannot work within the human species it is not a taught behavior but an innate one the only way to remove it would be through ignorance . Even if it was true there are too many memetic contaminants in the world and as such a human such as this could only exist in their protected bubble . Secondly humans realize good performance vs bad its one of the thing our ape brains do because it was vital for surviving to reproduce. Let a bunch of kids make a kickball team they instantly choose the kids they know are better and thats not something they are taught they just know it causes good outcome. Anyway were fucked up hyper violent hairless chimps i doubt we will gave a happy history at the end of it all


Yeah, patriarchy ended in the West some time ago. It's not really a myth in other parts of the world, though. It's still very real there.


Come back and tell me about that when men stop going Credit Card Ninja trying to race me to the cash register if I try to pay for something on a date.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།
Following new legislation in The Sherpa Empire, life is short but human kindness is endless.
Alternate IC names: Sherpaland, Pharak

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Mon May 29, 2023 9:23 pm

The Sherpa Empire wrote:
Alternate Garza wrote:
Yeah, patriarchy ended in the West some time ago. It's not really a myth in other parts of the world, though. It's still very real there.


Come back and tell me about that when men stop going Credit Card Ninja trying to race me to the cash register if I try to pay for something on a date.

Incidentally, this is another area where men are discriminated against, although a lot more minor than the others we’ve discussed. You may not engage in that particular bit of male gender role enforcement, but there are so many women before you that have, and they act in accordance with what they presume your expectations are, based on the women before you.
Last edited by Galloism on Mon May 29, 2023 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Northern Socialist Council Republics
Senator
 
Posts: 3767
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Northern Socialist Council Republics » Mon May 29, 2023 10:05 pm

I see that we have devolved into the usual gender argument again. I will say that I tend to be very sympathetic to Gallo's arguments.

Also, as a South Korean, I will laugh at the idea that gender-discriminatory conscription is discriminatory against women. The misogynist reactionaries here have been pushing gender-blind conscription for years; it's always the feminist groups who seem to have a big problem with that idea (and the Army itself, which is odd because the Army is so conservative-aligned on pretty much everything else) and keeps throwing excuse after excuse as to why forcing men into wasting years of their life doing pointless drudge work is not in fact gender-based discrimination.
Call me "Russ" if you're referring to me the out-of-character poster or "NSRS" if you're referring to me the in-character nation.
Previously on Plzen. NationStates-er since 2014.

Social-democrat and hardline secularist.
Come roleplay with us. We have cookies.

User avatar
Techocracy101010
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: May 04, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Techocracy101010 » Tue May 30, 2023 4:55 am

The Sherpa Empire wrote:
Alternate Garza wrote:
Yeah, patriarchy ended in the West some time ago. It's not really a myth in other parts of the world, though. It's still very real there.


Come back and tell me about that when men stop going Credit Card Ninja trying to race me to the cash register if I try to pay for something on a date.

1. We are told thats the polite thing to do my mom rilled into my head that if you are a decent man you cover the first date you walk on the nearest side of the sidewalk yo the street etc etc .
2. ngl id love to have someone bother to pay for food on a date sounds nice
3. mixed signals my mom told me this years ago and other stuff im sure you would consider patriarchy yet she votes blue supports abortion etc married later to get a masters ( shes 63 now i was born in 1990 do the math there) in many ways it feels like folk are searching to find opression where there is none.
Last edited by Techocracy101010 on Tue May 30, 2023 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Point Blob
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 148
Founded: Apr 29, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Point Blob » Tue May 30, 2023 5:28 am

Kenowa wrote:- Biological Essentialism:
The belief that biological instincts have the upper hand in choice making. I personally disagree, as people rebel against states and commit s**cide all of the time, defying the prime biological motivator of not dying.

Seems you disagree because your understanding of the subject isn't sufficiently detailed.
On one hand I could recommend you go read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, but that would probably lead down a completely different rabbit hole... even if I personally found it a particularly good book. I mean nobody ever wants a book recommendation in an online thread, do they?
Perhaps it would be easier to note that GENETIC self-perpetuation is the name of the game, and not merely bodily survival... but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is quite a complicated topic and I've personally forgotten too much to feel confident advising in any detail. From what I see of it though, any claims that people have risen above the level of other animals is exactly the sort of thing any animal would believe of their own kind. People are still absolutely living by the same biological drives as everything else.


The incels point out that if you are ugly or submissive women are not going to feel attracted to you, which is true, but it is not limited to that and I believe it's worth expanding on when contrasted to the other incel ideas. They focus only on gender essentialism and end up making this just a point about fatalism, which is where ideologies go to die. However they tend to take the route of just saying "it's not worth it to take action" instead of the opposite "we must take action, but we must remember that our fight will never end" posture.

This likely played a great role in killing the incel community as most incels eventually became redpillers again or simply stopped caring about the issue. And honestly good for them, the blackpill needed a reset after all of that ultrahedonistic egoism it ended up becoming.

They make a lot of poor choices and draw a lot of poor conclusions. However, ultimately the problem is that they have mistaken being loud and angry for being confident... and from the outside it just comes across like a huge, collective man-child tantrum.
The real tragedy of all of this is that the "incel community" have internalised self-harmful ideas about what constitutes success or failure as a man...


- Emasculation (Not Really):
The incels took the feminization of men quite literally, as they seem to think it's a biological thing (?). It is true that feminists are mostly women that dislike masculine men, at least in theory. Yet the women only focus on the negative part of masculinity, failing to see the real fact that gender roles are just forced behaviours one has to adopt just because of their gender, not inherently good or bad. For example, men are supposed to be brave, but also self-centered. Women are meant to be polite, but also lowkey narcissistic.

I fully agree with the incels in that women should play NO role in defining what men are meant to be, as being pressured to not be certain thing is not destroying gender roles, just making new ones. This is why many men think that feminism is hurting men instead of pushing up women. The incels kinda made a mess of themselves with this one as it got polluted by conspiracy theories about chemicals.

I'm inclined to say that the incels completely fucked this one up...
Gender roles are garbage. "What men are meant to be" only has any meaning from a reproductive perspective, and so in that sense ONLY straight women and gay guys have any say in "defining what men are meant to be", in so far as defining what they are attracted to.
In a non-reproductive context, "male" and "female" are just noise words. Completely irrelevant. People fretting over whether something is "masculine" or "feminine" when it doesn't have anything to do with the mating dance is just laughably pointless. And even within the context of the mating dance itself, one of the major things that make incels what they are is that they regard females as being some whole other species on the other side of an impassible divide... which is NOT an attitude conductive to active participation in the mating dance.


- Online Dating:
This is the most interesting and controversial theory. It sustains that, as online dating gets more and more common, attractive people will be the online ones that can form a relationship. The theory suggests that the very nature of online dating, being fully dependant on physical attraction until then passing a second filter of actually being a good person which is compatible with the other.

It IS harmful, yes. But the physical attraction factor is only a part of it.
The much bigger part of the harm it causes comes down to a numbers game. In the past, when people lived in small communities, their dating prospects were small and their standards were low. The larger communities become, the greater the prospects are for people... in theory. BUT because males and females mate-select in different ways, an increase in population will differ in its consequences for each gender. For females having more men to choose from means they will reject a far greater proportion of them, because they always want "the best" for themselves. For males, standards don't change nearly so much with an increase in population because males are biologically capable of mating with multiple women in the same timeframe, so they will tend to just try their luck with more of the women. And how these differences come into play against each other is where the trouble comes from... which is exacerbated to the extreme in an online dating scenario.
In short... having many more men to choose from make all the women more picky. Women becoming more picky result in men encountering failure far more often... so for efficiency's sake (or simply out of exasperation), they lower the amount of effort they contribute towards each woman. Nobody has the time to put 100% effort in just to be rejected. The lowered effort does not go unnoticed, and the women start to find that they're getting bombarded with low-effort, copypaste bullshit... so they raise their defenses higher and become even more picky. And since men keep finding that they're being shot down without even getting a chance, they lower their standards, lower their investment, and we get such disgusting behaviour as dick-pic spamming.
So if anyone completely innocent simply walks into the hellhole of a dating site and tries to use it seriously, expecting results... men will generally just be ignored until they give up.... and women will be bombarded with dick-pics and "open bob" requests until they quit in disgust.

So, simply put, the whole "online dating" thing was a disaster from the get-go... and most of it is simply down to population-density.


- Manosphere vs Modern Feminism
In retrospective, the manosphere and modern feminism are not really enemies because they are polar opposites but rather because they share the same motivation. To write a fictional rivalry you have to make the characters be alike yet in conflicting positions, which is why Joker vs Batman, Raiden vs Sam, Lex Lutor vs Superman, etc feel so organic as far as their universe goes. If Joker had his parents killed in front of him, he would be batman. If Raiden fully gave in to Jack The Ripper, he would be Sam. If Superman grew powerless in the slums, he would be Luthor.

You grab a incel, make him be raised as a female, and you end up with a feminist. You grab a feminist, make her be raised as a male, and you end up with an incel. You can see this in the small things, such as both movements being so convoluted regarding ideas that nobody agrees on basically anything anymore.

Well.... if you're talking about what an incel or adjacent regards as a "feminist" then yes.
If you're talking about those who see themselves AS feminists... then no.
Feminism is the new normal though... well, not even that new any more. I don't particularly care for the label, but the underlying concepts of what technically make a "feminist" are mostly what I'd just call common sense.
Last edited by Point Blob on Tue May 30, 2023 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 73183
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Tue May 30, 2023 6:08 am

Snipped out portions do not imply agreement, only lack of desire to respond to sections I think aren't worth responding to.

Point Blob wrote:
- Online Dating:
This is the most interesting and controversial theory. It sustains that, as online dating gets more and more common, attractive people will be the online ones that can form a relationship. The theory suggests that the very nature of online dating, being fully dependant on physical attraction until then passing a second filter of actually being a good person which is compatible with the other.

It IS harmful, yes. But the physical attraction factor is only a part of it.
The much bigger part of the harm it causes comes down to a numbers game. In the past, when people lived in small communities, their dating prospects were small and their standards were low. The larger communities become, the greater the prospects are for people... in theory. BUT because males and females mate-select in different ways, an increase in population will differ in its consequences for each gender. For females having more men to choose from means they will reject a far greater proportion of them, because they always want "the best" for themselves. For males, standards don't change nearly so much with an increase in population because males are biologically capable of mating with multiple women in the same timeframe, so they will tend to just try their luck with more of the women. And how these differences come into play against each other is where the trouble comes from... which is exacerbated to the extreme in an online dating scenario.
In short... having many more men to choose from make all the women more picky. Women becoming more picky result in men encountering failure far more often... so for efficiency's sake (or simply out of exasperation), they lower the amount of effort they contribute towards each woman. Nobody has the time to put 100% effort in just to be rejected. The lowered effort does not go unnoticed, and the women start to find that they're getting bombarded with low-effort, copypaste bullshit... so they raise their defenses higher and become even more picky. And since men keep finding that they're being shot down without even getting a chance, they lower their standards, lower their investment, and we get such disgusting behaviour as dick-pic spamming.
So if anyone completely innocent simply walks into the hellhole of a dating site and tries to use it seriously, expecting results... men will generally just be ignored until they give up.... and women will be bombarded with dick-pics and "open bob" requests until they quit in disgust.

So, simply put, the whole "online dating" thing was a disaster from the get-go... and most of it is simply down to population-density.

This is actually kind of an interesting analysis. I disagree that it necessarily leads to spamming dick pics (random dick pics and random tit pics are both super common online and both kind of annoying), but I do think it's interesting the way you're describing the dynamic here.

It is true that online dating has been a disaster, but I hadn't really considered the opposite side of the coin - how women's sexism might actually be driving lower effort participation among men because they're playing it as a numbers game, and then this could drive compensating behavior among women as a result, creating a really negative feedback loop.

Like I said, I disagree this necessarily leads to spamming dick pics, but the mechanism you've laid out there is actually extremely plausible and follows game theory (which most things actually do).
Last edited by Galloism on Tue May 30, 2023 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
The United Penguin Commonwealth
Minister
 
Posts: 3479
Founded: Feb 01, 2022
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The United Penguin Commonwealth » Tue May 30, 2023 7:07 am

Kenowa wrote:The thing is that they do having positive qualities that get ignored by the fact they are in a group opposite to yours, and that just calling someone bad and anormal ignores the rule of everything having a motive.


the motive is that women don’t want to marry them and they’re angry, either at themselves (but never constructively) or women.
linux > windows

@ruleofthree@universeodon.com

User avatar
Techocracy101010
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: May 04, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Techocracy101010 » Tue May 30, 2023 7:08 am

Galloism wrote:Snipped out portions do not imply agreement, only lack of desire to respond to sections I think aren't worth responding to.

Point Blob wrote:
It IS harmful, yes. But the physical attraction factor is only a part of it.
The much bigger part of the harm it causes comes down to a numbers game. In the past, when people lived in small communities, their dating prospects were small and their standards were low. The larger communities become, the greater the prospects are for people... in theory. BUT because males and females mate-select in different ways, an increase in population will differ in its consequences for each gender. For females having more men to choose from means they will reject a far greater proportion of them, because they always want "the best" for themselves. For males, standards don't change nearly so much with an increase in population because males are biologically capable of mating with multiple women in the same timeframe, so they will tend to just try their luck with more of the women. And how these differences come into play against each other is where the trouble comes from... which is exacerbated to the extreme in an online dating scenario.
In short... having many more men to choose from make all the women more picky. Women becoming more picky result in men encountering failure far more often... so for efficiency's sake (or simply out of exasperation), they lower the amount of effort they contribute towards each woman. Nobody has the time to put 100% effort in just to be rejected. The lowered effort does not go unnoticed, and the women start to find that they're getting bombarded with low-effort, copypaste bullshit... so they raise their defenses higher and become even more picky. And since men keep finding that they're being shot down without even getting a chance, they lower their standards, lower their investment, and we get such disgusting behaviour as dick-pic spamming.
So if anyone completely innocent simply walks into the hellhole of a dating site and tries to use it seriously, expecting results... men will generally just be ignored until they give up.... and women will be bombarded with dick-pics and "open bob" requests until they quit in disgust.

So, simply put, the whole "online dating" thing was a disaster from the get-go... and most of it is simply down to population-density.

This is actually kind of an interesting analysis. I disagree that it necessarily leads to spamming dick pics (random dick pics and random tit pics are both super common online and both kind of annoying), but I do think it's interesting the way you're describing the dynamic here.

It is true that online dating has been a disaster, but I hadn't really considered the opposite side of the coin - how women's sexism might actually be driving lower effort participation among men because they're playing it as a numbers game, and then this could drive compensating behavior among women as a result, creating a really negative feedback loop.

Like I said, I disagree this necessarily leads to spamming dick pics, but the mechanism you've laid out there is actually extremely plausible and follows game theory (which most things actually do).


when I first started using tinder i was picky after awhile i just right swiped any and everything hoping to get a reply. I had consulted multiple folk to build my profile had a picture of me in fire kit me filming a wolf pup etc etc no bites so i just eventually stopped trying i have a load of cool pics up funny nice bio etc but only get replies from women looking for a meal ticket
Last edited by Techocracy101010 on Tue May 30, 2023 7:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58552
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue May 30, 2023 7:18 am

Primitive Communism wrote:
Galloism wrote:Sure, but that's not the same as valued. Until they strike.


Striking does not make those jobs valued, rather it reminds the capitalists why they are valued.


This implies value independent of an evaluator, which is fairly ridiculous.



Women in general are treated differently by the justice system not out of favoritism but out of doubt for their agency and capability. Women received lesser punishment because they're perceived as being overly-emotionally and less capable of reason. They are pitied for perceived stupidity and lack of self-control. Women are considered less threatening because they are considered weaker.



Are white people also viewed as lacking agency by the justice system?

You are overestimating it because you are trying to see something that isn't there. You are deliberately driving down the wrong side of the road; I don't know how else to explain this to you. Because you refuse to even consider the woman's situation, the woman's perspective, all you can see is imaginary persecution. It is the mistreatment of *women* by a patriarchal society that is the reason for these disparities, and you cannot see this because you've deluded yourself into believing that women are somehow running our society - which is such an absurd lie I don't even know where to begin.


Oh boy, here I go pointing out feminist epistemological poverty again.

(Epistemology is the study of knowledge, basically "How do we know what we know?" and "What even is an idea?" and so on).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential ... ed_concept

Regarding their definitions of equity, power and so on, this is required reading for any critic of feminism. For a given conceptualization of certain things you can say there is a patriarchy. However, where I find feminists usually fail to argue their case is a justification for those conceptualizations having more legitimacy than other ones which conceive of the world as primarily gynocentric and anti-male.

Any definition of patriarchy is going to be reliant on claims about power and is thus pretty dead in the water in terms of being provable or true or evidence based because power is an essentially contested concept. (Indeed the foundational text of the mens rights movement is 'the myth of male power' and argues extensively, though not in these terms, that the feminist conception of power is alien to men as they have their own conceptualization of it).

But it gets worse when we note that the conceptualization of power often used by schools of feminism often seems designed instrumentally, to achieve an outcome, and subtle alterations are made not in response to the environment giving a clarification of power to hone conceptualizations, but to increase the definitions instrumental utility.

Given that we have institutionalized feminist conceptualizations based upon this epistemic injustice, I think a case can be made for feminism being a form of epistemic injustice built upon the usage of "Patriarchy theory". (I.E, a conceptualization of power instrumentally useful to women has been enshrined as "Fact" while others have been dismissed as "Counterfactual", placing particular views of womens subjective self-interest as a description of reality and marginalizing all other views from discussion in a manner we can easily conclude is epistemically unjust).

This is one aspect of gynocentrism, and it's one reason why i'm an anti-feminist. I'd also say this is a structural inevitability of feminism and it is inherently rooted in the way it approaches the world due to how it conceives of legitimacy.

This amounts to epistemic injustice when you consider the implications and outcomes of that the conceptualization being chosen and the "Just-so" assertion of it without a participatory mechanism.

You keep claiming MRAs are "Delusional" or "Lying" or "Spreading misinformation" because you're operating under the assumption that your subjective opinions about the nature of power are factual evaluations.

Here is one example of why this is a folly. We might agree that absent other considerations, a boss has power over an employee. (N=1).

Merely by increasing this to N=2

"The boss is being blackmailed by the employee" we already render the power dynamic inherently essentially contested and any meaningful evaluation of "Who holds more power" becomes impossible beyond merely a difference of opinions, with arguments holding sway, but never decisively. Some people will give their *personal opinion based on their own subjective preferences*, but that's all they can realistically give. And anybody who insists a different answer is the result of "Lies" and so on as you do would quickly reveal themselves to be extremely close minded and tedious.

And yet you think that this problem is somehow made easier to solve by making N=Y, where Y is the sum total of all variables in society and making it nigh-infinitely more complex. The feminist ideology is complete gibberish epistemologically speaking, it is merely a statement of dogmatic close mindedness and self-absorbtion. I can also discuss how this makes feminist influence in society fundamentally illegitimate once you demonstrate an understanding of this point.

Because you only use a singular conception and view everything else as illegitimate for being different, the following exchange is of monumental importance to understanding you.

Set up:
"Why are feminists shocked by boys turning to the alt-right?"

They're shocked because of wilful hermeneutical ignorance.

I am unfamiliar with that word in this context. Please explain?

willful hermeneutical ignorance is 'the propensity to dismiss whole aspects of the experienced world by refusing to become proficient in the epistemic resources required for attending to those parts of the world well'. An example would be a blind person who outright dismisses people talking about things they see and insisting they are just crazy. Or somebody who cannot read not only refusing to read, but refusing to accept anybody else can either. Any knowledge that comes from a source they view as fundamentally invalid will be rejected. Wilful hermeneutical ignorance is common in prejudiced politics, and is characteristic of feminist thought as well.

Thank you. Can I ask another favor? Can you give an example of hermeneutical ignorance outside of feminism? Just trying to wrap my head around it.


Sure.

An example would be the treatment of societies without the written word as incapable of communicating dense information like writing. (This was engaged in a lot).

The Inca would use the Quipu for instance.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Quipu.jpg

(This is dense with information, and equivalent to a book, and you can be taught to "read" it).

But despite being told that repeatedly, because it didn't align with the experiences of western powers, they dismissed that as nonsense that people were just making up because they were embaressed the incans were so backwards, and all kinds of other excuses to be deliberately ignorant of a kind of knowledge they didn't want to see as valid.

If they acknowledged the Quipu for example, then they couldn't claim the Incans were unlearned anymore, which they used to justify power over them.

Similarly, the feminist is incapable of recognizing testimony from males and engages in wilful hermeneutical ignorance (What it is like to be a man subjected to feminism, or indeed, approaching the question using one of the many thousands of other political lenses to examine equity to gain knowledge and insight, rather than insisting feminism = equality and power = patriarchy) because if they're forced to engage with it, they have to change.

They write only in one language, and insist information cannot be gained by other means and anyone who says otherwise is merely ignorant (because they're projecting their own inadequacy onto others). They will come across a spanish text and say "That's just gibberish" or "That's not how you spell that word" or "Oh now that you've explained it to me, you're TRYING to write <english sentence>, but you're too ignorant to know how.". Just listen to their bafflement about why people don't support feminism or oppose it and see exactly that kind of talk. Watch them constantly try and reframe everything into feminist terms like "That's just male privilege" and how they're genuinely not capable of understanding the subtle distinctions lost in translation/explaining it to them, and crucially not even capable of understanding this when you point it out to them and asking them to learn another language to fully understand the differences. Don't get me started on how badly they react if you show them a Quipu.

They believe that Language = English and are no longer capable of perceiving otherwise through conscious decision to disregard reality and evidence to the contrary by insisting that every other form of language is simply "Bad English." done by "Ignorant people.", or not even a language at all if its sufficiently different. As a consequence they are permanently stuck in a state of having less access to information than everybody else and only having access to a narrow and specific form of knowledge that informs their entire being. They undertake this form of wilful ignorance in the pursuit of power, a textbook example of wilful hermeneutical ignorance.


The "Language" discussed here is your conceptions and your dogmatism. Your understanding of various conceptions is equivalent to "Language? That's just another word for English" and everything else is just nonsense.

Now that's a quite long post, I know, but it gets right at the heart of the matter.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Tue May 30, 2023 8:18 am, edited 10 times in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Almonaster Nuevo, Nu Elysium, Tungstan, Vorkat

Advertisement

Remove ads