NationStates Jolt Archive

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.

Yes.

* makes lots & lots of popcorn *

You fail to take into account that the vast majority of the feminists you're describing are raging dykes.

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.

I bet you get laid. A lot.

I abjure thee, troll!

I'm getting married to one.

And would dispite being male describe myself as a feminist too.

...

Bottle seems okay, she has that mutual respect and communication thing down, I think she's the only feminist I know.....I think I might be one, depending on how you define it...someone married me.

All modern feminists are liberal vegetarians? Not really sure where to begin with that...

I'm a male feminist. I get annoyed and frustrated, not to mention downright angry whenever I see typical female stereotypes, such as helplessness and need to be rescued, in anything.

On that same token, equal means equal. Men and women are equal. Not one above the other. Equal.

I bet you get laid. A lot.

I abjure thee, troll!

I LOVE being abjured!

That, and smelly cheese.

Since when did feminists like men? :p

I'm getting married to one.

And would dispite being male describe myself as a feminist too.

What?

Care to try to translate that last sentence?

Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.
Not everywhere, even in civilised western countries. Italy for one. Here women often get lesser wages than a man doing the same job, for example. Also there is a traditional culture about "male superiority" that is quite hard to die.
And, being born in a left-wing, "feminist" family (my father cooks and cleans the house, too, and feels no shame in it, for example), it took me a lot of time to realise that, sadly, this isn't the standard... so I guess that feminism has still a lot of work to do, and I'm supporting it.

My girlfried is a feminist. It is more than four years that we're happily together and things go quite fine. Really, no problem.

I LOVE being abjured!

That, and smelly cheese.

:D

Who doesn't like being abjured... rar.

I'm getting married to one.

And would dispite being male describe myself as a feminist too.

Congratulations! Being a married man myself I recommed it. It has been kind of ok sort of.

It makes sense that two feminists would get along well. However, do you think it more likely that you will get divorced than if you had married a non-feminist? All that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that. It seems to me that modern feminism (of which I am no scholar) seems to be not the best friend and supporter of marriage. Any thoughts on this?

I'm a male feminist. I get annoyed and frustrated, not to mention downright angry whenever I see typical female stereotypes, such as helplessness and need to be rescued, in anything.

On that same token, equal means equal. Men and women are equal. Not one above the other. Equal.

As a female myself, I disagree. It's childish to claim men and women are equal on a biological level. One is inherently of greater physical strength.

I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.

If you actually are interested in hearing from a feminist (which I kinda doubt), then here you go:

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place. Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well. I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.

I've been in a serious relationship with a man for about 5 years now. I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist or been turned off by my feminist beliefs. Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such, so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.

Bottle seems okay, she has that mutual respect and communication thing down, I think she's the only feminist I know.....I think I might be one, depending on how you define it...someone married me.

A feminist is someone who seeks to find equity in a system that has been phallocentric for centuries.

Or, according to todays' 'troll du jour', a liberal, vegitarian lesbian...

Whichever suits.

Congratulations! Being a married man myself I recommed it. It has been kind of ok sort of.

It makes sense that two feminists would get along well. However, do you think it more likely that you will get divorced than if you had married a non-feminist? All that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that. It seems to me that modern feminism (of which I am no scholar) seems to be not the best friend and supporter of marriage. Any thoughts on this?

I am personally fullfilled in my marriage, it's my fault if one day I am not, I don't need a man to make me happy, and I don't blame a man when I am not.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are.I am. Of course, she doesn't go around throwing bricks at porn shops & shit like that, and it isn't a relationship issue.

Both males & females are oppressed in the modern society, based on their genders. It just happens in radicallu different ways. With that in mind, it's fairly pointless for me to get mixed up in her feminism, unless she asks me to - and vice versa.

I have come across some of the idiots you seem to be talking about, but I doubt most people would call that feminism. Feminism has never been about dominion, but rather about the right to self realization & equality. I want that for women just as much as I want it for myself, but as I said, I'm not a woman, and not in a position to determine what's right for them. All I can do is offer my help when it's needed & expect the same in return.

What?

Care to try to translate that last sentence?

You do not have to be female to be a feminist.

I am male and a feminist.

A feminist is someone who seeks to find equity in a system that has been phallocentric for centuries.

Or, according to todays' 'troll du jour', a liberal, vegitarian lesbian...

Whichever suits.

I think that all humans should be given access to their God given rights, and that God created everyone equally and that limiting rights based on random things like gender, sexual orientation, race, or whatever else people come up with is not only immoral but stupid.

As a female myself, I disagree. It's childish to claim men and women are equal on a biological level. One is inherently of greater physical strength.

This is so far beyond not true, it's not even funny.

In tests of strength, I'd put money on my wife, over... 90% of the guys on the forum.

I think that all humans should be given access to their God given rights, and that God created everyone equally and that limiting rights based on random things like gender, sexual orientation, race, or whatever else people come up with is not only immoral but stupid.

Bloody liberals...

I guess it depends on what kind of feminist. I'm sure not all of them are man-hating, speech censoring, assholes with no sense of humor. Then again, some are.

The sexist man-haters probably don't get married.

Meh.

1. Man=Woman
2. Marry someone you love and choose carefully
3. Don't marry a raging bitch unless you are a raging asshole.

I bet you get laid. A lot.

I abjure thee, troll!

I am not exactly sure what abjuring is. Doesn't it have something to do with magic?

My libido is average, I guess, and probably not that relevant to the post or anyone's business.

The point is do feministy women get laid a lot by the same guy who stays with them and loves hearing their feministy rants or do feministy women just get used for their bodies because guys just do not want much more from such crazy woman. No offense to any feminists or the men that actually care about them.

It makes sense that two feminists would get along well. However, do you think it more likely that you will get divorced than if you had married a non-feminist? All that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that. It seems to me that modern feminism (of which I am no scholar) seems to be not the best friend and supporter of marriage. Any thoughts on this?
I think feminism absolutely is related to increased divorce rates. And I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

Is anybody really shocked to realize that if women have more autonomy and freedom they will tend to exercise it? That if women aren't financially dependent on men, then they will be more inclined to leave a man who they don't want to be with? Gee, imagine that: women who have means of their own are more likely to pack up and leave when their marriage sucks!

If dependency is what it takes to keep a marriage together, then that's a marriage that's not worth keeping.

I also think feminism helps by reminding women (and men!) that marriage isn't for everybody, and doesn't have to be. A lot of people simply don't want to get married, or they realize that marriage isn't for them after they've tried it. Anti-feminist myths say that women all want to marry, all want to make babies, and all want to follow one path in life. Feminism calls BS on that. Will this result in a reduction in the number of married women? Possibly. Is that automatically a bad thing? Nope.

This is so far beyond not true, it's not even funny.

In tests of strength, I'd put money on my wife, over... 90% of the guys on the forum.Because exaggeration is good for the sole...

Men & women are different. It's self-evident. And it in no way means we aren't equals.

Congratulations! Being a married man myself I recommed it. It has been kind of ok sort of.

It makes sense that two feminists would get along well. However, do you think it more likely that you will get divorced than if you had married a non-feminist? All that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that. It seems to me that modern feminism (of which I am no scholar) seems to be not the best friend and supporter of marriage. Any thoughts on this?

I doubt it is more likely I'll get divorced. Why would I?

Some branches of feminism do not like marrige, for various reasons. And in those cases they might like to avoid getting hitched. My fiance has no such objections.

What exactly is it about modern feminism that you object to?

I am not exactly sure what abjuring is. Doesn't it have something to do with magic?

My libido is average, I guess, and probably not that relevant to the post or anyone's business.

The point is do feministy women get laid a lot by the same guy who stays with them and loves hearing their feministy rants or do feministy women just get used for their bodies because guys just do not want much more from such crazy woman. No offense to any feminists or the men that actually care about them.

The original post was trolling. This is more trolling.

Avaunt! Avaunt, already!

This is so far beyond not true, it's not even funny.

In tests of strength, I'd put money on my wife, over... 90% of the guys on the forum.

sigh

The guys in this forum probably never leave their house. That wasn't a "OMG NO FEMALE IS EVER GOING TO BE STRONGER THAN ANY MALE" statement and it irritates the shit out of me that you responded in the manner you did. In GENERAL, women living in the same conditions as men will have less muscle.

Do you think it was just some bizarre coincidence that female body builders with the same experience have less muscle mass than male body builders?

I am. Of course, she doesn't go around throwing bricks at porn shops & shit like that, and it isn't a relationship issue.

Both males & females are oppressed in the modern society, based on their genders. It just happens in radicallu different ways. With that in mind, it's fairly pointless for me to get mixed up in her feminism, unless she asks me to - and vice versa.

I have come across some of the idiots you seem to be talking about, but I doubt most people would call that feminism. Feminism has never been about dominion, but rather about the right to self realization & equality. I want that for women just as much as I want it for myself, but as I said, I'm not a woman, and not in a position to determine what's right for them. All I can do is offer my help when it's needed & expect the same in return.

Nicely put. "Respect" is the word that came to mind reading Similization's post. I didn't see much of it in the OP, I must say, just another rant from the right about how women should shut now, they have all the rights they need, with the obligatory use of the word "liberal" several times as a derogatory term. Oh, but sorry, I'm a lesbian, so my opinion doesn't count here. * returns to the huge tub of popcorn *

Because exaggeration is good for the sole...

Men & women are different. It's self-evident. And it in no way means we aren't equals.

Generalisation is the problem. I'm way over 6 feet tall, way over 200 lbs. Not a little guy.

But, my 5'3" wife, is FAR stronger than me. It's not exaggeration... she's just very strong.

That's the problem with making absolute statements. They are always wrong.

The point is do feministy women get laid a lot by the same guy who stays with them and loves hearing their feministy rants or do feministy women just get used for their bodies because guys just do not want much more from such crazy woman. No offense to any feminists or the men that actually care about them.
You've got your Troll Talking Points all mixed up. Here, let me refresh your memory:

[anti-feminist]
Feminists are evil sperm-stealing whores. They love meaningless sex, and use men as their play things. They don't want men to stay with them or love them, they just want to trick men into giving them orgasms and getting them pregnant so they can sue for child support! MWA HA HA!!!
[/anti-feminist]

Today's trolls are of poor quality compared to the trolls of yore.

I dated a feminist once. She was my first girlfriend. Worse relationship I ever had. Feminists suck in relationships because they love to believe that everything happening around them is meant to keep them down(see also Jesse Jackson). This gets quite annoying when they perceive you asking them not to do things that hurt you as trying to be controlling. She had HER time, HER life, HER everything. She even still felt the need to control MY time, MY life, MY everything. I got out of that relationship ASAP. Ever since, I've dated what the stereotypical Southern Belle's. I love it. I would never marry a girl who doesn't love the idea of taking my last name, cooking dinner every night, and staying home with the kids when we have them. If she wants her own property when we're married, that's a sign to me that she doesn't intend to be faithful to our relationship. On the same note, inverse is true with me. Once we're married, everything is OURS. And in every relationship, things shouldn't be about what's each others rights and property, it should be more about the things you share. Feminism is taking a wrong approach by making women and men seperate but equal, when they should really focus on ensuring that equality is kept within unions of men and women.

sigh

The guys in this forum probably never leave their house. That wasn't a "OMG NO FEMALE IS EVER GOING TO BE STRONGER THAN ANY MALE" statement and it irritates the shit out of me that you responded in the manner you did. In GENERAL, women living in the same conditions as men will have less muscle.

Do you think it was just some bizarre coincidence that female body builders with the same experience have less muscle mass than male body builders?

Irritates you, does it?

Don't make statements that are erroneous, if you don't want to be called on it.

My mother is an islamo - femenist. Quite strange,actually.

That being said, femenism is, in principle, quite a justifiable and fair movement.

However, in practice... :p

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.


Well, since you asked...I love being married to my feminist wife. Thanks to the fact that all feminists "think it is ok to get divorced for trivial reasons", I can take advantage of her now and then get out safely when things get too "real". For example, I get to "use one for her body", but later on I can divorce her after I get sick of the vegetables (which I've been desperately needing due to the fact that as a single male I mostly live off of red meat or whatever else I manage to kill during the day's hunt). I suppose sometimes the "psycho-babble" gets a bit old, but that's ok because I'm too stupid to understand what she's really saying anyhow. So far things are going well, though. She thinks I'm really neat because I don't beat her if dinner isn't ready when I get home, and I think it's great that she can love a man who's so incomprehensibly blind to the sexual politics of our society as to assert that the need to question the remaining gender inequalities is obsolete.

In other words, feminists are great and you should marry one too.

Irritates you, does it?

Don't make statements that are erroneous, if you don't want to be called on it.

Wow, way to just ignore everything stated.

It irritated me that you're an idiot with poor reading comprehension. I'm sorry I didn't word that clearly in the first response to you.

Today's trolls are of poor quality compared to the trolls of yore.

MeansToAnEnd is pretty good at it.

Not everywhere, even in civilised western countries. Italy for one. Here women often get lesser wages than a man doing the same job, for example. Also there is a traditional culture about "male superiority" that is quite hard to die.
And, being born in a left-wing, "feminist" family (my father cooks and cleans the house, too, and feels no shame in it, for example), it took me a lot of time to realise that, sadly, this isn't the standard... so I guess that feminism has still a lot of work to do, and I'm supporting it.

My girlfried is a feminist. It is more than four years that we're happily together and things go quite fine. Really, no problem.

Then the feminists should go to Italy. They wont do any good doing it here.


And no, I wouldn't marry one of those psycho feminists that give the movement a bad name.

As a female myself, I disagree. It's childish to claim men and women are equal on a biological level. One is inherently of greater physical strength.

...right. That's why my almost-fifteen year old sister can easily defeat me in arm wrestling. That's why she does all the truly heavy lifting around the house, why she can pick up an entire bloody PIANO(albiet for only a short while) by herself. Because she's clearly a man.

...oh wait a second...

The baseline is higher for males than for females in strength, true, but that's all it is: a baseline. Furthermore, that baseline is not equal with all people. Furthermore still, when I'm talking about equal, I mean in society, under the law, how we treat each other, ect.

Of course, getting back to my original post: as I said, I am a male feminist. That is, I see myself as the old-fashioned type of femme, the one who wants to see equal status and hates seeing examples of non-equal status. I don't consider "modern" feminists to be feminists. I happily use the term feminazi to describe them.

My fiance seems to like me just fine.

Of course, your descriptions of "feminist" are so inacurate as to be useless. If you're going to troll, at least disguise it a little bit, please.

Wow, way to just ignore everything stated.

It irritated me that you're an idiot with poor reading comprehension. I'm sorry I didn't word that clearly in the first response to you.

Thanks, that made me day. :D

I'd engage you in a battle of wits, but I feel bad about initiating combat with unarmed opponents.

Wow, way to just ignore everything stated.

It irritated me that you're an idiot with poor reading comprehension. I'm sorry I didn't word that clearly in the first response to you.

hmm.......I now see why you said

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11852668&postcount=53

it's all in the way you behave yourself during a debate.

Thanks, that made me day. :D

I'd engage you in a battle of wits, but I feel bad about initiating combat with unarmed opponents.

... And now you've resorted to quoting Hot Topic t-shirts. How old are you again? :|

I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.

If you actually are interested in hearing from a feminist (which I kinda doubt), then here you go:

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place. Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well. I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.

I've been in a serious relationship with a man for about 5 years now. I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist or been turned off by my feminist beliefs. Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such, so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.

First off, not all anti feminists are bad lovers. I think bad male lovers are simply inexperienced. I do not think it has anything to do with whether one would rather live in a traditional lifestyle or a liberal new age one.

Second, there is no relationsip between intelligence and feminism or anti feminism. I think this may be true only if you think that you know the "correct" way to think and live and that anyone that disagrees is "incorrect" and therefore stupid. Let me tell you, there are a lot of really dumb liberals out there and I think I have the same but opposite bias in that I often think that feminists are stupid because I disagree with the doctrine and see it as dangerous and subversive. I am sure though that there are both intelligent and stupid people on both sides of the debate.

Generalisation is the problem. I'm way over 6 feet tall, way over 200 lbs. Not a little guy.

But, my 5'3" wife, is FAR stronger than me. It's not exaggeration... she's just very strong.

That's the problem with making absolute statements. They are always wrong.

Take 1000 random men, and 1000 random women.

On average the men will perform MUCH better than the women in strength tests. Particulary upper body strength.

There will be some women who do better than some men, but it is very very unlikely any of the women will do better than all, or even most, of the men.

This is a practical thing, not a sexist thing.

Like saying men tend to be taller than women.

Irritates you, does it?

Don't make statements that are erroneous, if you don't want to be called on it.
It's funny how they always like to bring up the same "generalizations," isn't it?

They always mention muscle mass. Hmm.

Today's trolls are of poor quality compared to the trolls of yore.

Quite so..! :)

hmm.......I now see why you said

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11852668&postcount=53

it's all in the way you behave yourself during a debate.

Actually it was because there was a "best looking female in the forum" and I stated that they were all unattractive.

So it goes, I guess, eh?

Take 1000 random men, and 1000 random women.

On average the men will perform MUCH better than the women in strength tests. Particulary upper body strength.

There will be some women who do better than some men, but it is very very unlikely any of the women will do better than all, or even most, of the men.

This is a practical thing, not a sexist thing.

Like saying men tend to be taller than women.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT I KNOW A WOMAN WHO IS 6' JESUS CHRIST YOU'RE SUCH A BIGOT

... And now you've resorted to quoting Hot Topic t-shirts. How old are you again? :|

I don't recall stating my age to begin with, so I'm not too shocked you've forgotten. They say the memory is the first thing to go.

Then the memory.

On the other hand, I don't recall stating my age to begin with, so I'm not too shocked you've forgotten. They say the memory is the first thing to go.


Is there really a hot-topic T-shirt with that on? I think there's one about an hour from here, it might be worth a look.

In various posts including this one I see troll used as a noun and a verb. What is a troll or trolling in relation to posting?

First off, not all anti feminists are bad lovers. I think bad male lovers are simply inexperienced. I do not think it has anything to do with whether one would rather live in a traditional lifestyle or a liberal new age one.

Not all bad lovers are anti-feminist, but I have never encountered an anti-feminist who wasn't also bad lover. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be an anti-feminist who's good in the sack, I'm just saying it's a general trend. You know, like how men have more muscle mass than women, on average?


Second, there is no relationsip between intelligence and feminism or anti feminism. I think this may be true only if you think that you know the "correct" way to think and live and that anyone that disagrees is "incorrect" and therefore stupid. Let me tell you, there are a lot of really dumb liberals out there and I think I have the same but opposite bias in that I often think that feminists are stupid because I disagree with the doctrine and see it as dangerous and subversive. I am sure though that there are both intelligent and stupid people on both sides of the debate.
Again, I never said all stupid people were anti-feminist, just that all anti-feminist people are sub-par prospects for relationships.

It's like how there are lots of people who are stupid but are not racist, but all racists are (in my opinion) not worthy of consideration as romantic partners.

Remember, we are talking about my personal standards for relationships. There are women who are cool with dating anti-feminist men. That's their business. There are women who are cool with dating men who beat them, rape them, or abuse their children. I'm simply saying what my standards are. I'm not forcing anybody else to adopt them.

Also, I find it telling that you assume that all feminists are liberals, or that I am a liberal because I am a feminist. Are you really saying that no conservatives believe in the social and political equality of the sexes? That's like saying that all conservatives are racist! I'm not about to insult conservatives like that.

I don't recall stating my age to begin with, so I'm not too shocked you've forgotten. They say the memory is the first thing to go.

Then the memory.

On the other hand, I don't recall stating my age to begin with, so I'm not too shocked you've forgotten. They say the memory is the first thing to go.


Is there really a hot-topic T-shirt with that on? I think there's one about an hour from here, it might be worth a look.

That's been on t-shirts for the past several years. Good try with the whole clever thing, though, just try to be a decade sooner next time.

By the way, nothing sounds more appealing to me than hot feminist action.

First off, not all anti feminists are bad lovers. I think bad male lovers are simply inexperienced. I do not think it has anything to do with whether one would rather live in a traditional lifestyle or a liberal new age one.

Second, there is no relationsip between intelligence and feminism or anti feminism. I think this may be true only if you think that you know the "correct" way to think and live and that anyone that disagrees is "incorrect" and therefore stupid. Let me tell you, there are a lot of really dumb liberals out there and I think I have the same but opposite bias in that I often think that feminists are stupid because I disagree with the doctrine and see it as dangerous and subversive. I am sure though that there are both intelligent and stupid people on both sides of the debate.

Could you explain the dangerous and subversive elements of the Feminist Doctrine? And I will grant you the point that there are stupid people on both sies of the debate, even though you rather blithely tossed all those who call themselves feminists into the "stupid" category.

In various posts including this one I see troll used as a noun and a verb. What is a troll or trolling in relation to posting?

A troll refers to people who go to forums specifically to express opinions they themselves don't necessarily agree with simply to get a rise out of others.

Take 1000 random men, and 1000 random women.

On average the men will perform MUCH better than the women in strength tests. Particulary upper body strength.

There will be some women who do better than some men, but it is very very unlikely any of the women will do better than all, or even most, of the men.

This is a practical thing, not a sexist thing.

Like saying men tend to be taller than women.

But:

1) my 'shortass' wife would be noticably stronger than 900 of the 1000 random guys, and:

2) statistics are just numbers. There ARE no 'averages'.

First off, not all anti feminists are bad lovers. I think bad male lovers are simply inexperienced.

Not necessarily. A lot of very bad lovers have plenty of experience, they just don't care about their partners. And that is exactly what an anti-feminist male lover would be, as far as I am concerned - someone who didn't care about his partner. If he did, he would see her as an individual - as a human being, rather than as an object who must meet his personal definition of what a woman should be.

A man who saw me like that couldn't possibly have a strong emotional connection with me, and thus couldn't possibly be a good lover for me. There is more to being a good lover than technical prowess.

But:

1) my 'shortass' wife would be noticably stronger than 900 of the 1000 random guys, and:

2) statistics are just numbers. There ARE no 'averages'.

Your "shortass" wife is unique then. Which is a good thing don't get me wrong.

That's been on t-shirts for the past several years. Good try with the whole clever thing, though, just try to be a decade sooner next time.

Er... okay.

Sorry if I'm not as familiar with the hot-topic back catalogue. It must be because we don't have them in England.

On the other hand - you realise these T shirt companies take things people already say, to make their t-shirts, yes?

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.

could i have you over for a dinner/date?

A troll refers to people who go to forums specifically to express opinions they themselves don't necessarily agree with simply to get a rise out of others.

If the OP has read the ToS, as he or she should, they should know already what trolling is, don't you agree?

Er... okay.

Sorry if I'm not as familiar with the hot-topic back catalogue. It must be because we don't have them in England.

On the other hand - you realise these T shirt companies take things people already say, to make their t-shirts, yes?

My point was that rather than actually use your wits, you recycled a cliched, trite "comeback" with no original thought on your part. Quite ironic when the content of that statement is taken into account, I may add.

I swear, I really should just start opening MSPaint and draw out everything for you.

Your "shortass" wife is unique then. Which is a good thing don't get me wrong.

She is unique. We all are.

But she's not that much stronger than her sister... so maybe she's not that unusual?

She is unique. We all are.

But she's not that much stronger than her sister... so maybe she's not that unusual?

It's probably genetic then.

My point was that rather than actually use your wits, you recycled a cliched, trite "comeback" with no original thought on your part. Quite ironic when the content of that statement is taken into account, I may add.

I swear, I really should just start opening MSPaint and draw out everything for you.

I admit I recycled that line. I've been using it for years. That doesn't mean I found it on a t-shirt... it might mean I hadn't thought it worth dignifying your response with something tailor made.

Honestly, 'debating' with you is like arm-wrestling an egg.

Or genetic.

Quite possibly. But then, we are all 'genetic' creatures...

This is such BS. Whilst I also hate these neohyperfeminazis, I have gotten into one of these threads before only to discover that Feminism 2.0 isn't really about women at all. That is to say, as a few of the forum feminists have posted already, feminism is about the equality of the sexes. Not about womens rights or standing in society. This fucking confounds me to no end, seeing as it still goes by the name 'feminism'. Nevertheless, the cause of modern feminism is a good one, a hopeless one, but a good one.

What the OP is annoyed with is fuckwits, not feminists. These fuckwits claim to be feminists, and support the advancement of women in society (at the detriment of logic, equality, and economics). Nevertheless, 'Feminism' apparently does not agree with them, and thus they are technically not feminists. Perhaps you could call them radical feminists.

Seriously, you guys should think about a name change. Feminism is just not what 'feminism' is about. I personally think the aforementioned fuckwits have a greater claim to the name then you. Why not try something like 'equalism' or 'anti-discrimination-based-upon-gender-and-or-sex-but-not-racism'. Am I being cynical again? I am too numb to tell.

Feminists are actually worse lovers, too selfish. Everyone I know agrees with that statement, so if you want to question it, prove it to me. But odds are I wouldn't even look at you twice before I barfed.

Which brings me to point 2, you say anti-feminists are scarping from the bottom of the bucket and its hard to find women who aren't feminists. Where the hell did you come from?
#1 90% of the girls I've met think feminism is pointless, they're happy where things are right now and think its stupid to fight for no reason.
#2 the other 10% are ugly dykes, I actually went to a different high school to get away from their BS
#3 I am a somewhat strong anti-feminist, and I have dated: A swimsuit model, Homecoming queen, 3 cheerleaders(hot), and my current girl(my fiancee) is about the prettiest girl I've ever seen. And if you want to question their personalities, let me start by saying that they are extremely moral people who are incredibly nice, they love the same things I love, and will not only listen well, but always say the right thing.
#4 dominant and submissive roles are a natural occurance that play out between every meeting of people. in any relationship of any form there is dominant and submissive. Most often it occurs subconsciously based on size and strength(presence). So that is why it matters that most men are stronger than women.
less seriously:
#5 My frat bro's and I kick fat feminists if they try to come by our parties. and guess what, noone ever sticks up for them...hmmm...

a question here...
is there something as modern machist?

... And now you've resorted to quoting Hot Topic t-shirts. How old are you again? :|

You think Hot Topic is the owner of that phrase? I take it you weren't alive in the 80's then.

You fail to take into account that the vast majority of the feminists you're describing are raging dykes.

Yay, I'm a dyke. Horray for logical fallacies.

... I often think that feminists are stupid because I disagree with the doctrine and see it as dangerous and subversive.

The doctrine?

Which doctrine? Can you show me it?


Or do you just mean that the idea we should treat all people equally, is 'dangerous' and 'subversive'?

I admit I recycled that line. I've been using it for years. That doesn't mean I found it on a t-shirt... it might mean I hadn't thought it worth dignifying your response with something tailor made.

Honestly, 'debating' with you is like arm-wrestling an egg.

If you fail to see the hypocrisy and idiocy in what you did, then really, you're not exactly someone I'm inclined to converse with. You've failed to acknowledge any part of the actual debate and instead choose to respond as a 10-year-old would. If I wanted to be subjected to that sort of thing, I'd go visit a fifth grade class and at random call them all "stupidheads." They're still creative at that age, though, so admittedly I could potentially be disappointed even then.

This is such BS. Whilst I also hate these neohyperfeminazis, I have gotten into one of these threads before only to discover that Feminism 2.0 isn't really about women at all. That is to say, as a few of the forum feminists have posted already, feminism is about the equality of the sexes. Not about womens rights or standing in society. This fucking confounds me to no end, seeing as it still goes by the name 'feminism'. Nevertheless, the cause of modern feminism is a good one, a hopeless one, but a good one.

What the OP is annoyed with is fuckwits, not feminists. These fuckwits claim to be feminists, and support the advancement of women in society (at the detriment of logic, equality, and economics). Nevertheless, 'Feminism' apparently does not agree with them, and thus they are technically not feminists. Perhaps you could call them radical feminists.

Seriously, you guys should think about a name change. Feminism is just not what 'feminism' is about. I personally think the aforementioned fuckwits have a greater claim to the name then you. Why not try something like 'equalism' or 'anti-discrimination-based-upon-gender-and-or-sex-but-not-racism'. Am I being cynical again? I am too numb to tell.

QFT

Yay, I'm a dyke. Horray for logical fallacies.

A raging dyke, no less. Man, I'm jealous.

Ok I am not a troll I am also not a feminist. I think that society works best when there is order. I guess I am kind of Confucian. I think that a good Constitution keeps a government orderly and a traditional family model keeps the family orderly.

I run my home. I am a man. I think that is the traditional and therefore natural way of living. I would never even think about hitting my wife. I would never think about limiting her communication with others (although she does talk to her mom way too much and it does get a little annoying. I am quite a benevolent dictator but I am still the man in charge.

That may seem strange to a feminist but I think she and I are quite happy. I think we are happy because we are living life the way a man and a woman are meant to live.

I think feminism is dangerous because it disrupts that order and the tranquility and peace that are order's fruit. Our grandparents lived as I do and they won World War II and although born during the Depression and poverty accumulated more wealth than any other generation.

I do not think that those that live as I do are morons. I think that modern feminism is a child of the 60s and all the irresponsibility and self-centered "self empowerment" bolognia that was part of that group of young fools.

I blame the breakdown of the family on feminism because the selfish part of it says that if you are unhappy it is ok to leave the marriage even if your unhappiness was reasonably foreseeable when you got married or if you have children and there is no abuse.

I blame feminism for single mothers and the upsurge in crime that goes with young kids without a good male role model in poverty. Feminism teaches women that being a single mom is ok and I disagree.

Feminism disrupts order and leads to chaos. It is a short sighted search for happiness that erodes the familial order that is the wellspring of happiness.

You may disagree with me but I agree with myself. I am not a troll.

Yay, I'm a dyke. Horray for logical fallacies.

Is no one here able to determine sincerity of statements if there's no winking face at the end or something?

My god.

Could you explain the dangerous and subversive elements of the Feminist Doctrine?That's easy enough. Feminism is dangerous & subversive, because if we don't combat it, it will eventually force us to deal with our own gender-based oppression.. And it's never fun to admit to yourself that your sense of dignity is nothing but a pathetic illusion.

It's classic 1984. If we don't concentrate on something outside ourselves, we risk having to deal with ourselves.

It seems to me that modern feminism (of which I am no scholar) seems to be not the best friend and supporter of marriage. Any thoughts on this?

Well, statistically speaking (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html), in the US those states generally considered to be conservative tend to have the highest divorce rates while those states generally considered to be liberal have the lowest.

One might safely assume that more women in liberal states would deem themselves as feminists than those in conservative states.

So reality seems not to support your opinion.

You think Hot Topic is the owner of that phrase? I take it you weren't alive in the 80's then.

Read following threads before responding to me. I'm tired of you all being such fucking jackasses.

The doctrine?

Which doctrine? Can you show me it?


Or do you just mean that the idea we should treat all people equally, is 'dangerous' and 'subversive'?

He's referring to that 'dangerous doctrine' of continuing to address the concerns of women and the FACT that women are still underrepresented in the power positions of our society. You see, they have the right to vote and not get beaten so they (and those that support the rights of women) need to sit down and shut up already. Apparently as long as people have equal rights (well except for, you know, they don't) then it doesn't matter if they are in practice treated unfairly, because, of course, activisim should be about making thngs appear to be okay.

Well, statistically speaking (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html), in the US those states generally considered to be conservative tend to have the highest divorce rates while those states generally considered to be liberal have the lowest.

One might safely assume that more women in liberal states would deem themselves as feminists than those in conservative states.

So reality seems not to support your opinion.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. It can be safely ignored.

If you fail to see the hypocrisy and idiocy in what you did, then really, you're not exactly someone I'm inclined to converse with. You've failed to acknowledge any part of the actual debate and instead choose to respond as a 10-year-old would. If I wanted to be subjected to that sort of thing, I'd go visit a fifth grade class and at random call them all "stupidheads." They're still creative at that age, though, so admittedly I could potentially be disappointed even then.

The hypocrisy? I'm not sure we define the phrase equally... and 'idiocy', no less? You are aware there are Terms of Service to this facility you are enjoying, yes?

As for the possibility you might no longer grace me with your incisive wit... well, I'm saddenned obviously... but I think I can soldier on.

The original post is clearly trolling, and no amount of your attempting to 'enable' it with vitriolic outburst is likely to redeem it. Vapid generalisation has never been an especially adroit mechanism for promulgating debate, so I will contest absolutes. As I said, if this irritates you, I'll bite back the tears.

Well, statistically speaking (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html), in the US those states generally considered to be conservative tend to have the highest divorce rates while those states generally considered to be liberal have the lowest.

One might safely assume that more women in liberal states would deem themselves as feminists than those in conservative states.

So reality seems not to support your opinion.


Or maybe liberals do not get married as much as conservatives. Is there any proof that conservative states have higher divorce ratios? This could be someone twisting the facts (and I do not mean you, I mean your source) or it could be a really interesting finding that is counter to what I presumed.

Ok I am not a troll I am also not a feminist. I think that society works best when there is order. I guess I am kind of Confucian. I think that a good Constitution keeps a government orderly and a traditional family model keeps the family orderly.

I run my home. I am a man. I think that is the traditional and therefore natural way of living. I would never even think about hitting my wife. I would never think about limiting her communication with others (although she does talk to her mom way too much and it does get a little annoying. I am quite a benevolent dictator but I am still the man in charge.

That may seem strange to a feminist but I think she and I are quite happy. I think we are happy because we are living life the way a man and a woman are meant to live.

I think feminism is dangerous because it disrupts that order and the tranquility and peace that are order's fruit. Our grandparents lived as I do and they won World War II and although born during the Depression and poverty accumulated more wealth than any other generation.

I do not think that those that live as I do are morons. I think that modern feminism is a child of the 60s and all the irresponsibility and self-centered "self empowerment" bolognia that was part of that group of young fools.

I blame the breakdown of the family on feminism because the selfish part of it says that if you are unhappy it is ok to leave the marriage even if your unhappiness was reasonably foreseeable when you got married or if you have children and there is no abuse.

I blame feminism for single mothers and the upsurge in crime that goes with young kids without a good male role model in poverty. Feminism teaches women that being a single mom is ok and I disagree.

Feminism disrupts order and leads to chaos. It is a short sighted search for happiness that erodes the familial order that is the wellspring of happiness.

You may disagree with me but I agree with myself. I am not a troll.

Dear Benevolent Dictator.

Your very existance violates the "Freedom Agenda" as dictated by our glorious President, the God-inspired Mr. Bush. You must recant you use of your Weapons of Masculine Dominance alnd leave your home at once, or you shall find yourself invaded. The United States cannot afford to wait for your threat to materialize in the form of a mushroom head.

Prepare to be invaded..... because Freedom is on the March!!!!!!

:p

The hypocrisy? I'm not sure we define the phrase equally... and 'idiocy', no less? You are aware there are Terms of Service to this facility you are enjoying, yes?

As for the possibility you might no longer grace me with your incisive wit... well, I'm saddenned obviously... but I think I can soldier on.

The original post is clearly trolling, and no amount of your attempting to 'enable' it with vitriolic outburst is likely to redeem it. Vapid generalisation has never been an especially adroit mechanism for promulgating debate, so I will contest absolutes. As I said, if this irritates you, I'll bite back the tears.

For the sake of my faith in humanity I'm going to assume you're joking.

Have a fantastic day.

That may seem strange to a feminist...

You say 'feminist' here, where I think you intended the phrase 'citizen of the planet Earth'.

Hey kids! Its equation time! And today the topic is attractiveness...

Hypothesis a)

Moderate feminists, with belief in equality, well rounded individuals > conforming to stereotype "girlyness"

Hypothesis b)

Ubercrazymentalistfeminists < anything and everything

From this we can see that it entirely depends on the type of feminist in question. Q.E.D.
What? Everyone else has already said this? Well, I said it in EQUATION form, so I made it scientific:p. Oh yes

Or maybe liberals do not get married as much as conservatives. Is there any proof that conservative states have higher divorce ratios? This could be someone twisting the facts (and I do not mean you, I mean your source) or it could be a really interesting finding that is counter to what I presumed.

Go do the math yourself..... (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_20.pdf)

That's been on t-shirts for the past several years. Good try with the whole clever thing, though, just try to be a decade sooner next time.

Um, two decades, actually. At least. However, it might be different in Europe where the poster you are replying to grew up. Who the hell shops at Hot Topic?

a question here...
is there something as modern machist?
Isn't it 'Masculist'? Anyhow, Bottle, Dempublicent, and Ashmoria should effectively be 'Masculists', seeing as their definition of 'feminism' doesn't discriminate between genders.

Um, two decades, actually. At least. However, it might be different in Europe where the poster you are replying to grew up. Who the hell shops at Hot Topic?

Apparently no one, since the business is failing and they're having to close down everywhere.

Read following threads before responding to me. I'm tired of you all being such fucking jackasses.

Pardon me? Who is you all? I read your post. I replied to your post. My reply was directly responsive to the point that you made.

Meanwhile, I, by mentioning, that Hot Topic isn't the origin of the phrase am a 'fucking jackass', but you are, what, a polite, even-handed poster simply trying to get a careful and cogent point across. Let's examine the evidence, shall we?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859190&postcount=4

I'm sorry that this 'raging dyke' replied to your comment and corrected you on the origin of the phrase.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859286&postcount=33

So now we know that modern feminists are raging dykes and the guys on this forum never leave the house. Let's see what other widely generalized insults we can find.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859318&postcount=42

Oh, now you're insults are getting more specific.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859341&postcount=49

And the beat goes on.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859350&postcount=54

and on...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859354&postcount=55

Oh, look, flamebaiting. You're hyperbolous immitation fits right in.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859431&postcount=80

I'm interested in how you define jackass, given the behavior you find acceptable, and the fact that you called me one for posting information about the origin of the phrase.

Pardon me? Who is you all? I read your post. I replied to your post. My reply was directly responsive to the point that you made.

Meanwhile, I, by mentioning, that Hot Topic isn't the origin of the phrase am a 'fucking jackass', but you are, what, a polite, even-handed poster simply trying to get a careful and cogent point across. Let's examine the evidence, shall we?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859190&postcount=4

I'm sorry that this 'raging dyke' replied to your comment and corrected you on the origin of the phrase.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859286&postcount=33

So now we know that modern feminists are raging dykes and the guys on this forum never leave the house. Let's see what other widely generalized insults we can find.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859318&postcount=42

Oh, now you're insults are getting more specific.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859341&postcount=49

And the beat goes on.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859350&postcount=54

and on...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859354&postcount=55

Oh, look, flamebaiting. You're hyperbolous immitation fits right in.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859431&postcount=80

I'm interested in how you define jackass, given the behavior you find acceptable, and the fact that you called me one for posting information about the origin of the phrase.


I think of one as being a jackass when because there's no ;) smiley at the end of a post, they assume it to be made in complete seriousness.

Yes, you've caught me, I genuinely believe that every feminist who ever lived is a lesbian.

Ok I am not a troll I am also not a feminist. I think that society works best when there is order. I guess I am kind of Confucian. I think that a good Constitution keeps a government orderly and a traditional family model keeps the family orderly.

I run my home. I am a man. I think that is the traditional and therefore natural way of living. I would never even think about hitting my wife. I would never think about limiting her communication with others (although she does talk to her mom way too much and it does get a little annoying. I am quite a benevolent dictator but I am still the man in charge.

That may seem strange to a feminist but I think she and I are quite happy. I think we are happy because we are living life the way a man and a woman are meant to live.

I think feminism is dangerous because it disrupts that order and the tranquility and peace that are order's fruit. Our grandparents lived as I do and they won World War II and although born during the Depression and poverty accumulated more wealth than any other generation.

I do not think that those that live as I do are morons. I think that modern feminism is a child of the 60s and all the irresponsibility and self-centered "self empowerment" bolognia that was part of that group of young fools.

I blame the breakdown of the family on feminism because the selfish part of it says that if you are unhappy it is ok to leave the marriage even if your unhappiness was reasonably foreseeable when you got married or if you have children and there is no abuse.

I blame feminism for single mothers and the upsurge in crime that goes with young kids without a good male role model in poverty. Feminism teaches women that being a single mom is ok and I disagree.

Feminism disrupts order and leads to chaos. It is a short sighted search for happiness that erodes the familial order that is the wellspring of happiness.

You may disagree with me but I agree with myself. I am not a troll.

I think I might vomit.

keep in mind that I do submit to my husband, and your statement still makes me sick.

Well, statistically speaking (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html), in the US those states generally considered to be conservative tend to have the highest divorce rates while those states generally considered to be liberal have the lowest.

One might safely assume that more women in liberal states would deem themselves as feminists than those in conservative states.

So reality seems not to support your opinion.There isn't enough information available there to come to that sort of conclusion, though.

For the sake of my faith in humanity I'm going to assume you're joking.

Have a fantastic day.

Oh. I am, thankyou. A fantastic day. I got involved in a very promising enterprise, and I talked to someone I've not seen in half a decade. A very good day, so far.

I'm surprised that you find someone objecting to illogical debate tactics most likely to be 'joking'... but hey, different strokes, right?

Shalom.

Pardon me? Who is you all? I read your post. I replied to your post. My reply was directly responsive to the point that you made.

Meanwhile, I, by mentioning, that Hot Topic isn't the origin of the phrase am a 'fucking jackass', but you are, what, a polite, even-handed poster simply trying to get a careful and cogent point across. Let's examine the evidence, shall we?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859190&postcount=4

I'm sorry that this 'raging dyke' replied to your comment and corrected you on the origin of the phrase.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859286&postcount=33

So now we know that modern feminists are raging dykes and the guys on this forum never leave the house. Let's see what other widely generalized insults we can find.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859318&postcount=42

Oh, now you're insults are getting more specific.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859341&postcount=49

And the beat goes on.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859350&postcount=54

and on...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859354&postcount=55

Oh, look, flamebaiting. You're hyperbolous immitation fits right in.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11859431&postcount=80

I'm interested in how you define jackass, given the behavior you find acceptable, and the fact that you called me one for posting information about the origin of the phrase.

And FUCKING HELL, you took the all-caps comment literally as well? o_O

I think of one as being a jackass when because there's no ;) smiley at the end of a post, they assume it to be made in complete seriousness.

Yes, you've caught me, I genuinely believe that every feminist who ever lived is a lesbian.

Actually, that wasn't the post that made you call me a 'fucking jackass'. It was the post where I pointed out that Hot Topic is not the originator of the phrase. In fact, your claims about Hot Topic show it to be a popular phrase and GnI to be with the times, doesn't it? Perhaps you were intending to compliment him for being so hip.

Oh. I am, thankyou. A fantastic day. I got involved in a very promising enterprise, and I talked to someone I've not seen in half a decade. A very good day, so far.

I'm surprised that you find someone objecting to illogical debate tactics most likely to be 'joking'... but hey, different strokes, right?

Shalom.

Just keep talking to me then.

Actually, that wasn't the post that made you call me a 'fucking jackass'. It was the post where I pointed out that Hot Topic is not the originator of the phrase. In fact, your claims about Hot Topic show it to be a popular phrase and GnI to be with the times, doesn't it? Perhaps you were intending to compliment him for being so hip.

Yes, that's it exactly. Finally, someone who understands!

I'm somewhat mindboggled when people say that women in general are completely equal to men (in general) in strength.

I just... don't know what to say to it. *shrugs*

Yes, that's it exactly. Finally, someone who understands!

"I'm so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis."

And FUCKING HELL, you took the all-caps comment literally as well? o_O

Perhaps you don't know what IMMITATION means. I assumed you were attempting to immitate other posters. That would mean that you weren't intending to actually say what you say, but pretending to act like someone who would. I thought this was obvious.

Yes, that's it exactly. Finally, someone who understands!

I love this little tactic. "I can't ever be wrong if I just pretend like everything I say could mean just about anything." Don't worry, you're fooling everyone. It's really very clever.

I'm somewhat mindboggled when people say that women in general are completely equal to men (in general) in strength.

I just... don't know what to say to it. *shrugs*
Yeah, especially given that women (in general) have higher thresholds for pain, signficantly more resilient immune systems, and are capable of enduring greater extremes of temperature and famine.

Oh, wait, but we're supposed to define "strength" as "big upper body muscles good for thwacking mammoths," right?

;)

Well, I wandered in here, so I guess I better say something...probably famous last words, but what the hell.

First off, the OP seems rather trollish. I thought for a minute...well, never mind that. The problem is this: "Modern" feminists are no longer defined by the Susan B. Anthonys of the worls who fought for the right to vote and for reasonably equal wages. Back in those days, women sure as hell couldn't vote, and wages were far less for the same job than they were for men. That is, assuming women could get jobs at all. There's no point in denying that. The movement we now know as the feminist movement made some nice strides in that regard.

The "modern" feminists are defined nowadays by a mixture of causes that are of varying degrees of legitimacy. Wanting to help out rape victims and battered wives is a great idea. Robbing fathers of rights and trying to censor the media, and that includes pornography as well as the movies and TV, is far overstepping the principles of equality. And frankly, the loud-mouthed, man-hating, anti-freedom-of-speech, SCUM-worshipping, belligerent feminists need to stop representing a large segment of the population. Seriously. They're doing for their cause what Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps are doing for Christianity or what Osama bin Laden and Hezbollah are doing for Islam. They do what Stalin and Mao did for Communism, and frankly, if the most extreme feminists got into power, a lot of people would probably die.

Unfortunately, whoever yells, screams, and says the most insane things these days gets to define everything for their cause. It's one reason a person like me doesn't really care to identify with a group of people. It's one reason I don't care to call myself a feminist, and frankly, to me, labeling me as such is an insult. It's the same as labeling me a fascist, a Muslim, or a green-eyed snake - it's an insult to me because none of those things are accurate. And it tells me this much about anyone who would label me by those words - that such people pigeonhole other people rather than understanding them as individuals. And damnit, I am not about to be pigeonholed.

Perhaps you don't know what IMMITATION means. I assumed you were attempting to immitate other posters. That would mean that you weren't intending to actually say what you say, but pretending to act like someone who would. I thought this was obvious.

I was having trouble understanding why it was you felt the need to quote nearly every post I've made completely out of context. That's the answer to whatever it is you're now babbling about. However, I don't care. I've lost interest in this subject and unless you tell me your puppy got hit by a car this morning, which would suck, there's not much you can say to me that I will deem particularly significant. I'd advise engaging me in conversation at a later date before I am already exasperated, should it be a civilized discussion you want.

I think I might vomit.

keep in mind that I do submit to my husband, and your statement still makes me sick.

Thanks, Smunkee. I embarked on a reply but it tired me out.

One of our newspapers here has this as it's motto: "There is no hope for the satisfied man." I fear Freedonia is a satisfied man, very satisfied with the life he has and the way it centers around him.

I love this little tactic. "I can't ever be wrong if I just pretend like everything I say could mean just about anything." Don't worry, you're fooling everyone. It's really very clever.

I don't know of any other forum with people who would have interpreted my statements as you and that other guy did. It amazes me.

Ok I am not a troll I am also not a feminist. I think that society works best when there is order. I guess I am kind of Confucian. I think that a good Constitution keeps a government orderly and a traditional family model keeps the family orderly.

I run my home. I am a man. I think that is the traditional and therefore natural way of living. I would never even think about hitting my wife. I would never think about limiting her communication with others (although she does talk to her mom way too much and it does get a little annoying. I am quite a benevolent dictator but I am still the man in charge.

That may seem strange to a feminist but I think she and I are quite happy. I think we are happy because we are living life the way a man and a woman are meant to live.

I think feminism is dangerous because it disrupts that order and the tranquility and peace that are order's fruit. Our grandparents lived as I do and they won World War II and although born during the Depression and poverty accumulated more wealth than any other generation.

I do not think that those that live as I do are morons. I think that modern feminism is a child of the 60s and all the irresponsibility and self-centered "self empowerment" bolognia that was part of that group of young fools.

I blame the breakdown of the family on feminism because the selfish part of it says that if you are unhappy it is ok to leave the marriage even if your unhappiness was reasonably foreseeable when you got married or if you have children and there is no abuse.

I blame feminism for single mothers and the upsurge in crime that goes with young kids without a good male role model in poverty. Feminism teaches women that being a single mom is ok and I disagree.

Feminism disrupts order and leads to chaos. It is a short sighted search for happiness that erodes the familial order that is the wellspring of happiness.

You may disagree with me but I agree with myself. I am not a troll.
Behold the mating display of Virgo acerbus, commonly known as The Bitter Virgin.

The Bitter Virgin will repeat his song frequently and with increasing volume, in the hopes that a passing female will be so aggravated by his display that she will have sex with him in order to silence him.

I was having trouble understanding why it was you felt the need to quote nearly every post I've made completely out of context. That's the answer to whatever it is you're now babbling about. However, I don't care. I've lost interest in this subject and unless you tell me your puppy got hit by a car this morning, which would suck, there's not much you can say to me that I will deem particularly significant. I'd advise engaging me in conversation at a later date before I am already exasperated, should it be a civilized discussion you want.

Not quoted nor out of context. I linked to them so people could read them IN CONTEXT. That's what links do. And I read the entire thread before linking them.

I've noticed you take no responsibility for your behavior or people's reaction to you. You are intentionally using a format designed to cause a reaction and then complaining when you get it. How about a little personal responsibility, my friend?

But, hey, maybe it's the fault of EVERYONE else that you continuously get the same reaction. Or perhaps you should consider, just consider, that you're the one evoking this reaction on purpose and that to complain about it is pretty silly.

Regarding Ebris post, I am suprised so many of you interpreted in such an offensive way. When it was so obviously a joke.

Yeah, especially given that women (in general) have higher thresholds for pain, signficantly more resilient immune systems, and are capable of enduring greater extremes of temperature and famine.

Oh, wait, but we're supposed to define "strength" as "big upper body muscles good for thwacking mammoths," right?

;)

*shrugs* I consider that to be more of an endurance thing. You can say women have more HP and DEF than men do, but certainly not as much STR.

Yes I'm a dork.

I don't know of any other forum with people who would have interpreted my statements as you and that other guy did. It amazes me.

Really? It's me and that other guy, huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11852668&postcount=53

According to you, that's not the case. So were you being dishonest then or now?

Regarding Ebris, I am suprised so many of you interpreted it in such an offensive way. When it is so obviously a joke.I coulden't be arsed to respond normally, so I just edited your statement slightly ;)

Not quoted nor out of context. I linked to them so people could read them IN CONTEXT. That's what links do. And I read the entire thread before linking them.

I've noticed you take no responsibility for your behavior or people's reaction to you. You are intentionally using a format designed to cause a reaction and then complaining when you get it. How about a little personal responsibility, my friend?

But, hey, maybe it's the fault of EVERYONE else that you continuously get the same reaction. Or perhaps you should consider, just consider, that you're the one evoking this reaction on purpose and that to complain about it is pretty silly.

I don't know how many forums you've been to, but in every one I have people did not rely so heavily on emoticons. Even on Livejournal where emotions run high, very, very few take the really bizarre statements to be serious.

To say that I have trouble taking responsibility for my statements is particularly amusing, as I have absolutely no problem with going to any ends to defend my viewpoint. However, when you say something jokingly, in what way should one react when people flip out over it and then adamantly insist it was a serious statement? I'm at the exasperation stage right now, past confusion and annoyance, and therefore would prefer you "get over it," as they say.

Since you know my intentions much better than I do, I'd like to suggest that from this point forward you open up a word document and engage yourself in conversation, giving yourself the exact same responses I'd give you. :)

Regarding Ebris post, I am suprised so many of you interpreted in such an offensive way. When it was so obviously a joke.

The way sarcasm is supposed to work is that you give some indication that you're being sarcastic. In voice, you highlight words with your voice that make it obvious, so much so that the sarcastic voice itself is very recognizable. In text. you use other markers like italics or context. If people don't catch one's sarcasm, it's generally tied back to the way you express yourself, particularly when a lot of people don't get your sarcasm.

Meanwhile, sarcastically or no, I was amused by being referred to as a raging dyke.

Really? It's me and that other guy, huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11852668&postcount=53

According to you, that's not the case. So were you being dishonest then or now?

... I was referring to this instance? I really did mean it when I called the females here aesthetically unappealing several months ago. That wasn't a joke. :)

*shrugs* I consider that to be more of an endurance thing. You can say women have more HP and DEF than men do, but certainly not as much STR.

Yes I'm a dork.

You win at life.

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.
Men who think all feminists are man haters are dorks. We only hate guys like you. I've been in serious relationships with men. Long lasting ones. I didn't divorce for trivial reasons. I'm a carnivore with a love of bloody steak. All feminism means is I believe women are as good as men.

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today.

Great, another lout who has no idea what feminism is, outside of the boogeywomyn he/she has created in his/her mind.

Then the feminists should go to Italy. They wont do any good doing it here.


And no, I wouldn't marry one of those psycho feminists that give the movement a bad name.


Ok, even feminists can be stupid and psychotic. Such feminists I wouldn't dare to date, or even talk to. You know, rotten apples everywhere...

Anyway, OK for all feminists to come to Italy! More women is always a good idea... whoops, what a stereotypical male sexist sentence...;)

The way sarcasm is supposed to work is that you give some indication that you're being sarcastic. In voice, you highlight words with your voice that make it obvious, so much so that the sarcastic voice itself is very recognizable. In text. you use other markers like italics or context. If people don't catch one's sarcasm, it's generally tied back to the way you express yourself, particularly when a lot of people don't get your sarcasm.

Meanwhile, sarcastically or no, I was amused by being referred to as a raging dyke.

Since others did catch it, I'm not going to be convinced to blame myself for your gross misunderstanding. But on the subject of misrepresenting emotions, I must point out that your alleged amusement was not evident at all.

I don't know how many forums you've been to, but in every one I have people did not rely so heavily on emoticons. Even on Livejournal where emotions run high, very, very few take the really bizarre statements to be serious.

To say that I have trouble taking responsibility for my statements is particularly amusing, as I have absolutely no problem with going to any ends to defend my viewpoint. However, when you say something jokingly, in what way should one react when people flip out over it and then adamantly insist it was a serious statement? I'm at the exasperation stage right now, past confusion and annoyance, and therefore would prefer you "get over it," as they say.

Since you know my intentions much better than I do, I'd like to suggest that from this point forward you open up a word document and engage yourself in conversation, giving yourself the exact same responses I'd give you. :)

I didn't adamantly insist you were serious and you called me a 'fucking jackass'. I didn't adamantly insist anything. If everyone is missing your point, then you're a bad communicator. That's all there is to it. Communication is a two-way street. If one person is misunderstanding you or maybe two, it's their fault. If everyone is misunderstanding you, it's your fault. According to your post, everyone does it.

Taking responsiblity for your actions doesn't refer to defending your position. Taking responsibility for your actions is about realizing that people's reaction to you when you've crafted your actions to create that reaction is your responsibility. It's about realizing that you are responsiblity for the life you intentionally create for yourself. You make the reactions you evoke from everyone their problem. Take responsiblity for your actions.

Dear Benevolent Dictator.

Your very existance violates the "Freedom Agenda" as dictated by our glorious President, the God-inspired Mr. Bush. You must recant you use of your Weapons of Masculine Dominance alnd leave your home at once, or you shall find yourself invaded. The United States cannot afford to wait for your threat to materialize in the form of a mushroom head.

Prepare to be invaded..... because Freedom is on the March!!!!!!

:p


Nice. You post made me all smiley.

Congratulations! Being a married man myself I recommed it. It has been kind of ok sort of.

It makes sense that two feminists would get along well. However, do you think it more likely that you will get divorced than if you had married a non-feminist? All that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that. It seems to me that modern feminism (of which I am no scholar) seems to be not the best friend and supporter of marriage. Any thoughts on this?
You began by saying feminism basically 'won', and equality issues are no longer a concern. And yet now, you are saying that a feminist and a non-feminist probably won't last in a relationship. The only reason I could see that as being true is if your original supposition is wrong, and the non-feminists actually subscribes to the idea that women should be submissive. So which is it? Either women already have the same opportunity as men to have "all that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that", or they don't. If they DO, there is no proble. If they DON'T, then maybe you have a case for the marriage-breakup prediction.

I didn't adamantly insist you were serious and you called me a 'fucking jackass'. I didn't adamantly insist anything. If everyone is missing your point, then you're a bad communicator. That's all there is to it. Communication is a two-way street. If one person is misunderstanding you or maybe two, it's their fault. If everyone is misunderstanding you, it's your fault. According to your post, everyone does it.

Taking responsiblity for your actions doesn't refer to defending your position. Taking responsibility for your actions is about realizing that people's reaction to you when you've crafted your actions to create that reaction is your responsibility. It's about realizing that you are responsiblity for the life you intentionally create for yourself. You make the reactions you evoke from everyone their problem. Take responsiblity for your actions.

"If one person is misunderstanding you or maybe two, it's their fault."

Uh, yeah, so you're number 2. Out of the whole Internet. This was sort of what I was getting at.

Yeah, especially given that women (in general) have higher thresholds for pain, signficantly more resilient immune systems, and are capable of enduring greater extremes of temperature and famine.

Oh, wait, but we're supposed to define "strength" as "big upper body muscles good for thwacking mammoths," right?

;)

I think the problem here is that people are using words several ways, meaning and implying several different things...

Men tend to have a higher potential for upper body build, and general muscle mass.
Women tend to have a higher potential for endurance and flexibility

Men only hear with half their brain. Women hear with both.

Men are less able to deal with pain, heat, cold (as bottle said)
Women are more

Men tend to be more agressive, women, less so.

The ultimate argument comes down to the fact that we are, at the genetic and chemical levels, different from eachother. Now, can we all atleast agree on that much?

Yes, there are women who are stronger than me...but by and large, if you pick a random girl off the street, I will be able to lift more weight than her. However, if you gave us each a 1lb weight and told us to hold it out in front of us without bending or lowering our arms, she would probably do better than me.

Men and women are different. That isn't a bad thing.

Yeah, especially given that women (in general) have higher thresholds for pain, signficantly more resilient immune systems, and are capable of enduring greater extremes of temperature and famine.

Oh, wait, but we're supposed to define "strength" as "big upper body muscles good for thwacking mammoths," right?

;)

yep, women have higher thresholds of pain. That's why ya'll cry and bitch and moan when you stub your toe. That's why most women are scared to play football. In fact, I think higher thresholds of pain in women have been known to be responsible for all the ways women act that caused the term pussy to be a derogative saying against someone who is a total wimp.

scientifically speaking, child birth releases painnumbing hormones. So if you want to claim that, that's a only during child birth...yes women have a higher pain threshold.

yep, women have higher thresholds of pain. That's why ya'll cry and bitch and moan when you stub your toe. That's why most women are scared to play football. In fact, I think higher thresholds of pain in women have been known to be responsible for all the ways women act that caused the term pussy to be a derogative saying against someone who is a total wimp.

scientifically speaking, child birth releases painnumbing hormones. So if you want to claim that, that's a only during child birth...yes women have a higher pain threshold.

Women can be kicked in the crotch and not need 15 minutes of recovery time. :cool:

Since others did catch it, I'm not going to be convinced to blame myself for your gross misunderstanding. But on the subject of misrepresenting emotions, I must point out that your alleged amusement was not evident at all.

See, here's the difference. Some people actually believe what you posted, and they would absolutely intend to be taken seriously. You gave no indication that you are not that person.

However, in my post, I added the word "apparently" which made it pretty clear that I am not dyke though I said I was. See, that's how it's done. Let's do a survey. We'll post your comment with the exact context you gave with no names attached. And we'll see how many people can state with any degree of certainty that the person who posted was kidding. Then I'll post my post without my name attached and the exact amount of context. And we'll see if people can figure out that "apparently, I'm a dyke." is sarcastic. It's not magic.

If you aren't aware that your posts exactly, exactly match the posts of someone who is serious then you are ignoring all evidence to the contrary or you're simply not reading.

Women can be kicked in the crotch and not need 15 minutes of recovery time. :cool:

And if you really want to hear crying and bitching and moaning, let me get my pointy-toed shoes .... :p

"If one person is misunderstanding you or maybe two, it's their fault."

Uh, yeah, so you're number 2. Out of the whole Internet. This was sort of what I was getting at.

Both of you shut up, this thread is for roasting idiots about feminism, not for roasting people about whatever it is you're hijacking the thread for...:p

You began by saying feminism basically 'won', and equality issues are no longer a concern. And yet now, you are saying that a feminist and a non-feminist probably won't last in a relationship. The only reason I could see that as being true is if your original supposition is wrong, and the non-feminists actually subscribes to the idea that women should be submissive. So which is it? Either women already have the same opportunity as men to have "all that personal fulfillment and empowerment and all that", or they don't. If they DO, there is no proble. If they DON'T, then maybe you have a case for the marriage-breakup prediction.


I began by saying patriarchy needed some reform and received it. Woman can now vote, not be abused, and own property.

Feminism at least modern feminism tries to go beyond this. You are right. This is the part that causes the problems. I do not think that property rights, protection from abuse, and voting caused the breakdown of family and hence society. If you think this way perhaps you are a bit of a troll.

*shrugs* I consider that to be more of an endurance thing. You can say women have more HP and DEF than men do, but certainly not as much STR.

Yes I'm a dork.

Except in life we're not carrying around axes and fighting orcs. Strength means more than the strict definition placed in games where things operate under strict rules.

Women can be kicked in the crotch and not need 15 minutes of recovery time. :cool:

That said, I think a titty twister might hurt a woman far more than a man, though as a man, I don't really enjoy them either.

What I heard about pain tolerance is that women have a higher threshold for LINGERING pain than men, but as for SUDDEN pain, men have a higher tolerance. So if a woman gets hit in the face with a cinder block, she'll hurt more than a man would, but as for that lingering pain in your arm, it will hurt a man more than a woman.

"If one person is misunderstanding you or maybe two, it's their fault."

Uh, yeah, so you're number 2. Out of the whole Internet. This was sort of what I was getting at.

Of course, as long as we ignore your own claims that everyone does it, that will work. Again, were you lying when you said or are you now? You tell me.

I began by saying patriarchy needed some reform and received it. Woman can now vote, not be abused, and own property.

Feminism at least modern feminism tries to go beyond this. You are right. This is the part that causes the problems. I do not think that property rights, protection from abuse, and voting caused the breakdown of family and hence society. If you think this way perhaps you are a bit of a troll.

That's not the point. You are claiming that feminists are some sort of evil mass that want to go WAAAAAAY beyond property rights, protection from abuse etc, and that these crazy women are responsible for the breakdown of family etc etc.

Making outrageous, general, unfounded and plainly ignorant statements like that can be excused if you really just don't know any better and are too lazy to get educated. If, however, you make those statements just to inflame...then it is you who is the troll. So which is it? Troll, or really ignorant?

I began by saying patriarchy needed some reform and received it.

By the way, you've just confirmed that you believe patriarchy still exists. And yet you claim this is not a problem...the people fighting that patriarchy are. Interesting.

See, here's the difference. Some people actually believe what you posted, and they would absolutely intend to be taken seriously. You gave no indication that you are not that person.

However, in my post, I added the word "apparently" which made it pretty clear that I am not dyke though I said I was. See, that's how it's done. Let's do a survey. We'll post your comment with the exact context you gave with no names attached. And we'll see how many people can state with any degree of certainty that the person who posted was kidding. Then I'll post my post without my name attached and the exact amount of context. And we'll see if people can figure out that "apparently, I'm a dyke." is sarcastic. It's not magic.

If you aren't aware that your posts exactly, exactly match the posts of someone who is serious then you are ignoring all evidence to the contrary or you're simply not reading.

I. AM. SO. BORED. OF. YOU.

You know what? I really don't care if I offended you. If you are going to take something so blatantly ridiculous as that statement seriously, then you surround yourself with FAR too many lunatics (yes, I have on occassion met genuinely insane people who believe feminism and lesbianism are synonymous) and therefore are not undeserving of being insulted every time someone dares to make a post without a winking face at the end.

I don't know what you want from me, but I can't reiterate enough that because you aren't a child and I am not being paid to babysit you, I do not care if you're offended by something I say, regardless of how misguided that interpretation may be. I'm confused as to why you haven't moved on after already discovering it was a light-hearted comment.

Of course, as long as we ignore your own claims that everyone does it, that will work. Again, were you lying when you said or are you now? You tell me.

It's slightly annoying how you choose to ignore responses given to questions you already asked.

When "everyone" did it, it was very clear I wasn't joking as I said something along the lines of "no one pictured in this thread is actually attractive."

How many more times are you going to need me to tell you this? Repetition gets old.

That's not the point. You are claiming that feminists are some sort of evil mass that want to go WAAAAAAY beyond property rights, protection from abuse etc, and that these crazy women are responsible for the breakdown of family etc etc.

Making outrageous, general, unfounded and plainly ignorant statements like that can be excused if you really just don't know any better and are too lazy to get educated. If, however, you make those statements just to inflame...then it is you who is the troll. So which is it? Troll, or really ignorant?

By the way, you've just confirmed that you believe patriarchy still exists. And yet you claim this is not a problem...the people fighting that patriarchy are. Interesting.

You missed Post #83, Neesika, which concluded, "You may disagree with me but I agree with myself." From Freedonia's point of view, there really is no debate. His way is right and natural and what he terms "feminism" is wrong and unnatural and responsible for a great many of the ills of modern life. As a character in one of Saroyan's stories says, "I'm not here to learn, I know."

I move an end to this thread.

I think the problem here is that people are using words several ways, meaning and implying several different things...

Men tend to have a higher potential for upper body build, and general muscle mass.
Women tend to have a higher potential for endurance and flexibility

Men only hear with half their brain. Women hear with both.

Men are less able to deal with pain, heat, cold (as bottle said)
Women are more

Men tend to be more agressive, women, less so.

The ultimate argument comes down to the fact that we are, at the genetic and chemical levels, different from eachother. Now, can we all atleast agree on that much?

Yes, there are women who are stronger than me...but by and large, if you pick a random girl off the street, I will be able to lift more weight than her. However, if you gave us each a 1lb weight and told us to hold it out in front of us without bending or lowering our arms, she would probably do better than me.

Men and women are different. That isn't a bad thing.

That's what I said! In dork language, of course.

Men start out with roughly these stats:

Strength: 8
Perception: 6
Endurance: 5
Charisma: Anywhere from 5 to 10, depending - this is possibly the most versatile and independant variable a man can have.
Intelligence: 7
Agility: 7
Luck: 7

(Bonus points for whoever can identify that SPECIAL stat listing and where it's from ^^)

Women, with this:

Strength: 5
Perception: 8
Endurance: 7
Charisma: Almost always usually 7 or more
Intelligence: 7
Agility: 6
Luck: 7


So you see, women are much more built for small guns targeting using critical hits to the head. Men are more built for melee and unarmed while depending on a strong armor and speed to keep them alive.

yep, women have higher thresholds of pain. That's why ya'll cry and bitch and moan when you stub your toe. That's why most women are scared to play football. In fact, I think higher thresholds of pain in women have been known to be responsible for all the ways women act that caused the term pussy to be a derogative saying against someone who is a total wimp.

scientifically speaking, child birth releases painnumbing hormones. So if you want to claim that, that's a only during child birth...yes women have a higher pain threshold.

Hmmm... let's do a quick analysis.

Women sit in labor for hours where their parts sometimes actaully tear while they give birth. Women sit in circles and tell each other about it and many women even look forward to the experience.

Now, in contrast, go into a circle of men and have one of them tell a story about a time he get hit in the crotch with a ball, or maybe when a girl accidently mildly scraped with her teeth. Every man in the room will wince and hold his crotch and ask that the guy stop telling the story.

Yep, women have no pain tolerance. But hey, since men can play football, they must be tougher. Because in the real world, football has a huge value in everyday life.

That said, I think a titty twister might hurt a woman far more than a man, though as a man, I don't really enjoy them either.

What I heard about pain tolerance is that women have a higher threshold for LINGERING pain than men, but as for SUDDEN pain, men have a higher tolerance. So if a woman gets hit in the face with a cinder block, she'll hurt more than a man would, but as for that lingering pain in your arm, it will hurt a man more than a woman.

I don't think so, unless one were to grab like the entire breast and twist it. :/

I'd think a kick in the nuts is a sudden pain, or does the initial contact not hurt so much as it does moments after?

That's not the point. You are claiming that feminists are some sort of evil mass that want to go WAAAAAAY beyond property rights, protection from abuse etc, and that these crazy women are responsible for the breakdown of family etc etc.

Making outrageous, general, unfounded and plainly ignorant statements like that can be excused if you really just don't know any better and are too lazy to get educated. If, however, you make those statements just to inflame...then it is you who is the troll. So which is it? Troll, or really ignorant?


Are you claiming that feminists do not want to go beyond the reforms listed above? Are you claiming that feminists are merely hanging out to make sure that we do not lose the above listed reforms? What about affirmative action? What about forcing men to be responsible for children they do not want or not letting them have children that the woman wants to have aborted? What about glorifying single women for having families without a husband? What about claiming that men are all a bunch of rapists? What about saying it is ok for a woman to have a veto right over her husband? What about political correctness? You do not think they want that stuff? Then you must be a troll or ignorant.

The thingy I saw on Discover said that women are basically more sensitive to pain, But long term pain they handle better. They expressed less anxiety, therefore hanled the pain better.

That's what I said! In dork language, of course.

Men start out with roughly these stats:

Strength: 8
Perception: 6
Endurance: 5
Charisma: Anywhere from 5 to 10, depending - this is possibly the most versatile and independant variable a man can have.
Intelligence: 7
Agility: 7
Luck: 7

(Bonus points for whoever can identify that SPECIAL stat listing and where it's from ^^)

Women, with this:

Strength: 5
Perception: 8
Endurance: 7
Charisma: Almost always usually 7 or more
Intelligence: 7
Agility: 6
Luck: 7


So you see, women are much more built for small guns targeting using critical hits to the head. Men are more built for melee and unarmed while depending on a strong armor and speed to keep them alive.

I love you.

I don't think so, unless one were to grab like the entire breast and twist it. :/

I'd think a kick in the nuts is a sudden pain, or does the initial contact not hurt so much as it does moments after?


No it is a lingering pain.

Except in life we're not carrying around axes and fighting orcs. Strength means more than the strict definition placed in games where things operate under strict rules.

No, not really. That's what we have endurance for. Like I said, take the HP and DEF bonus and call it your strength, but agree that you don't have as much of the STR stat itself.

It's slightly annoying how you choose to ignore responses given to questions you already asked.

When "everyone" did it, it was very clear I wasn't joking as I said something along the lines of "no one pictured in this thread is actually attractive."

How many more times are you going to need me to tell you this? Repetition gets old.

I recognize that you're making excuses and not taking responsibility. I get that. I've noticed that in EVERY reply. However, the fact is that you said EVERYONE ALWAYS bitches about your posts. That doesn't reference one incident. You're trying to narrow the scope you don't have to accept responsibility. Keep getting annoyed because I won't ignore the facts despite your protestations that some facts make you look bad.

No it is a lingering pain.

Very... VERY lingering. A kick in the nuts is so painful it'll make a man cringe just hearing the words "a kick in the nuts".

I have zero tolerance for feminists. That being said, I should qualify it by saying I have zero tolerance for the feminists of today. Women should be able to own property and vote the same as men. And women should not be beaten for failing to cook dinner on time. The thing is though is that these reforms have already occurred.

My question is who marries these feministy wackos? I never would have considered dating one and if any of my friends were with one I would wonder why he would be with one. None of my friends ever dated one or would want to. Sure they might use one for their body or something but not have a serious relationship.

Anybody that marries a feminist is probably going to get divorced anyway so why bother. First, they think it is ok to divorce for trivial reasons. Second, a man would get so sick of all the liberal psycho-babble around the vegetarian dinner table that his only choices would be to either divorce the nutjob or kill himself.

So if there are any guys out there that are in a relationship with a feminist, please let me know why you are. I am not interested in hearing from unmarried/lesbian/single feminists because that just goes to show that feminists are just not interested in relationships with men. I guess if you are a feminist and you happen to be in a serious relationship with a man I would be interested in hearing from you too.

Where the hell are these "modern femenists" you speak of? I know lots of women who believe in equality and describe themselves as femenists, but none of them subscribe to this batty vegi-gynocracy you're babbling about. Are you sure they're not just in your head?

No, not really. That's what we have endurance for. Like I said, take the HP and DEF bonus and call it your strength, but agree that you don't have as much of the STR stat itself.

Amusing. I'm a male. Meanwhile, again, in the real world, strength is a bit more intricate than in games. Your protestations won't change the definition of the word.

That's what I said! In dork language, of course.

Men start out with roughly these stats:

Strength: 8
Perception: 6
Endurance: 5
Charisma: Anywhere from 5 to 10, depending - this is possibly the most versatile and independant variable a man can have.
Intelligence: 7
Agility: 7
Luck: 7

(Bonus points for whoever can identify that SPECIAL stat listing and where it's from ^^)

Women, with this:

Strength: 5
Perception: 8
Endurance: 7
Charisma: Almost always usually 7 or more
Intelligence: 7
Agility: 6
Luck: 7


So you see, women are much more built for small guns targeting using critical hits to the head. Men are more built for melee and unarmed while depending on a strong armor and speed to keep them alive.

This so reminds me of zork. My nation state's currency is the zorknid. Oh yeah!

I love you.

=)

Oh and don't mind the people here. We're fucking pirahnas, and we'll attack anything that resembles meat. It's sometimes best if you just pretend to be a piece of wood.

* makes lots & lots of popcorn *

*brings enough drinks for everyone*

Ought to be quite a show, eh? :p

Amusing. I'm a male. Meanwhile, again, in the real world, strength is a bit more intricate than in games. Your protestations won't change the definition of the word.

Strength, both in the real world and game world, can be defined by how much damage you can physically do or how much weight you can physically carry.

Endurance, in both worlds, can be defined as the ability to endure pain, the ability to take less overall damage from wounds, the ability to resist poisons, things like that. Is that not what Bottle had said women do better?

Are you claiming that feminists do not want to go beyond the reforms listed above? Are you claiming that feminists are merely hanging out to make sure that we do not lose the above listed reforms? What about affirmative action? What about forcing men to be responsible for children they do not want or not letting them have children that the woman wants to have aborted? What about glorifying single women for having families without a husband? What about claiming that men are all a bunch of rapists? What about saying it is ok for a woman to have a veto right over her husband? What about political correctness? You do not think they want that stuff? Then you must be a troll or ignorant.

I really need to get some work done, so I'll just take one of your points ...

You have veto power over your wife, do you not? Why shouldn't she have the same over you? Is she somehow less intelligent? Less thoughtful? If she runs your household to your satisfaction, why shouldn't she be able to override you on a domestic issue?

This so reminds me of zork. My nation state's currency is the zorknid. Oh yeah!

Never heard of it, though I'm interested now. Got a link to a review or download? What system is it for?

I recognize that you're making excuses and not taking responsibility. I get that. I've noticed that in EVERY reply. However, the fact is that you said EVERYONE ALWAYS bitches about your posts. That doesn't reference one incident. You're trying to narrow the scope you don't have to accept responsibility. Keep getting annoyed because I won't ignore the facts despite your protestations that some facts make you look bad.

"Everyone" referred to one incident several months ago, which I have described to you already. I have been to this forum on four separate occassions--the first time, wherein I called people unattractive, the second time (which was uneventful), last night, also uneventful, and now.

After that initial post that first time, people did indeed flip out and bitch quite a bit. As some held grudges when I showed up several months later, last night's remark constitutes as "always," even though "always" was "remnants of one instigation." I'm sure many will attest to this.

I really don't know where you're getting off by trying to give me a psych evaluation when this is the first time, to my knowledge, we've ever even had an encounter. You're incredibly ignorant in your feeble dot connections and I'm astounded by how far you're trying to stretch it. Can you please list any additional concerns in numerical format? I'd like you to be blunt so you can stop talking to me as soon as humanly possible, thanks.

Why has no one added fitness to this, which is very important.

Are you claiming that feminists do not want to go beyond the reforms listed above? You are claiming those reforms are enough, and yet you are also claiming that the patriarchy continues to exist. In essence you are saying, 'bitch, we let you out of the kitchen and you can now own a car and I can't hit you, now shut the fuck up'.

Are you claiming that feminists do not want to go beyond the reforms listed above? Are you claiming that feminists are merely hanging out to make sure that we do not lose the above listed reforms? What about affirmative action? What about forcing men to be responsible for children they do not want or not letting them have children that the woman wants to have aborted? What about glorifying single women for having families without a husband? What about claiming that men are all a bunch of rapists? What about saying it is ok for a woman to have a veto right over her husband? What about political correctness? You do not think they want that stuff? Then you must be a troll or ignorant.
Let me say, I'm certainly not going to base what I think 'THEY' want on your ridiculous, hysterical, histronic and boring comments.

I second the motion to end this thread.

Feminists are actually worse lovers, too selfish. Everyone I know agrees with that statement, so if you want to question it, prove it to me. But odds are I wouldn't even look at you twice before I barfed.

Funny, my fiance has never complained. In fact, quite the opposite. And I've never had cause to complain about him.

Which brings me to point 2, you say anti-feminists are scarping from the bottom of the bucket and its hard to find women who aren't feminists. Where the hell did you come from?
#1 90% of the girls I've met think feminism is pointless, they're happy where things are right now and think its stupid to fight for no reason.
#2 the other 10% are ugly dykes, I actually went to a different high school to get away from their BS
#3 I am a somewhat strong anti-feminist, and I have dated: A swimsuit model, Homecoming queen, 3 cheerleaders(hot), and my current girl(my fiancee) is about the prettiest girl I've ever seen. And if you want to question their personalities, let me start by saying that they are extremely moral people who are incredibly nice, they love the same things I love, and will not only listen well, but always say the right thing.
#4 dominant and submissive roles are a natural occurance that play out between every meeting of people. in any relationship of any form there is dominant and submissive. Most often it occurs subconsciously based on size and strength(presence). So that is why it matters that most men are stronger than women.
less seriously:
#5 My frat bro's and I kick fat feminists if they try to come by our parties. and guess what, noone ever sticks up for them...hmmm...


If this is truly representative of an "anti-feminist," then yes, dating one would be scraping the bottom of the bucket.

Why has no one added fitness to this, which is very important.

I'm not sure I understand. Fitness could be best described as the overall development of your stats that affect physical attributes. Mental fitness is a different catagory, I think.

But yeah, what do you mean?

Never heard of it, though I'm interested now. Got a link to a review or download? What system is it for?

It is an old Microsoft DOS text based game. It is a classic. I heard you can download all 10 Kb or so of it and play it but I am too much of a caveman to figure out how.

=)

Oh and don't mind the people here. We're fucking pirahnas, and we'll attack anything that resembles meat. It's sometimes best if you just pretend to be a piece of wood.

Eh, it's only a few people who have really bizarre thought processes that I don't want to deal with. Another handful are actually entertaining and likeable. The rest I haven't met yet. :p

It is an old Microsoft DOS text based game. It is a classic. I heard you can download all 10 Kb or so of it and play it but I am too much of a caveman to figure out how.

Meh text games. I'm a very graphic-oriented person.

I'm not sure I understand. Fitness could be best described as the overall development of your stats that affect physical attributes. Mental fitness is a different catagory, I think.

But yeah, what do you mean?

Well, just the amount of energy you can have. How much breathing you need to do. How much excercise you can take without your body giving up on you.

[QUOTE=Neesika;11859808]You are claiming those reforms are enough, and yet you are also claiming that the patriarchy continues to exist. In essence you are saying, 'bitch, we let you out of the kitchen and you can now own a car and I can't hit you, now shut the fuck up'.


Let me say, I'm certainly not going to base what I think 'THEY' want on your ridiculous, hysterical, histronic and boring comments.

I second the motion to end this thread.[/QUOTE

Yes. I am saying that although not in such a crude manner.

Why has no one added fitness to this, which is very important.

I think fitness is pretty evenly split. I've been on the track team all throughout high school, and as a result can run a mile in <6 minutes and have a resting heart rate in the high 40s-low 50s. I don't have impressive upper-body strength, though, but you were sort of vague.

I really need to get some work done, so I'll just take one of your points ...

You have veto power over your wife, do you not? Why shouldn't she have the same over you? Is she somehow less intelligent? Less thoughtful? If she runs your household to your satisfaction, why shouldn't she be able to override you on a domestic issue?

My wife is smart, thoughtful, wonderful in every way, and can run circles around Martha Stewart. However, she is a woman and I am a man.

My wife is smart, thoughtful, wonderful in every way, and can run circles around Martha Stewart. However, she is a woman and I am a man.

I think you're just trying to compensate for a small penis. :(

Well, just the amount of energy you can have. How much breathing you need to do. How much excercise you can take without your body giving up on you.

Ah, you mean HP. Yeah, we covered that.

However, she is a woman and I am a man.

And there it is.

Within 20 posts, someone will manage to blame Bill Clinton for the failure of patriarchy to subjegate women to an effective 2nd class status below men.

I think you're just trying to compensate for a small penis. :(

That is a possibility as I am hung like a gnat. However, it would be subconscious because I am not trying to consciously.

And there it is.

Within 20 posts, someone will manage to blame Bill Clinton for the failure of patriarchy to subjegate women to an effective 2nd class status below men.

I've yet to respond to a post of his because I simply can't deal with a level of ignorance that high. It's like he's been grinding his ignorance level with low-level monsters and repeating quests for years, now.

And there it is.

Within 20 posts, someone will manage to blame Bill Clinton for the failure of patriarchy to subjegate women to an effective 2nd class status below men.

Bill Clinton is the head of NOW (National Organization of Womanizers)

I've yet to respond to a post of his because I simply can't deal with a level of ignorance that high. It's like he's been grinding his ignorance level with low-level monsters and repeating quests for years, now.

Nope, I've figured out his problem!

I've yet to respond to a post of his because I simply can't deal with a level of ignorance that high. It's like he's been grinding his ignorance level with low-level monsters and repeating quests for years, now.


Wow I am starting to wish I was able to play D&D with my buddies this weekend, but it is a Halloween party weekend instead of a dice rolling weekend.

I think fitness is pretty evenly split. I've been on the track team all throughout high school, and as a result can run a mile in <6 minutes and have a resting heart rate in the high 40s-low 50s. I don't have impressive upper-body strength, though, but you were sort of vague.

Not for me. The girls in my school used to race with the boys in 800 meters. And there was usually about a 5 meter gap between all the girls and all the boys.

Also there are many sports which they change for women to make it easier them to handle, for example Tennis. Where the matches are shorted. You would also never see a women play a man at tennis.

Bill Clinton is the head of NOW (National Organization of Womanizers)

Are you admitting that Bill Clinton is not to blame for the failure of patriarchy to keep women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant?

Holy fuck, I'd call that progress.

Not for me. The girls in my school used to race with the boys in 800 meters. And there was usually about a 5 meter gap between all the girls and all the boys.

Also there are many sports which they change for women to make it easier them to handle, for example Tennis. Where the matches are shorted. You would also never see a women play a man at tennis.

Only three guys on the track team were faster than I was. I think in your initial post you were referring to athletic ability, which doesn't equate to fitness, which refers more to health. Heart rate, blood pressure, etc. would constitute fitness, while being able to sprint harder is athletic ability.

Hmmm... let's do a quick analysis.

Women sit in labor for hours where their parts sometimes actaully tear while they give birth. Women sit in circles and tell each other about it and many women even look forward to the experience.

Now, in contrast, go into a circle of men and have one of them tell a story about a time he get hit in the crotch with a ball, or maybe when a girl accidently mildly scraped with her teeth. Every man in the room will wince and hold his crotch and ask that the guy stop telling the story.

Yep, women have no pain tolerance. But hey, since men can play football, they must be tougher. Because in the real world, football has a huge value in everyday life.

you keep bringing up getting hit in the balls. women react the same way about getting hit in the breasts. or how about telling any person about how you had an experience that was very painful when the person you're telling has gone through the same experience. and you're response is women look forward to child birth so they're better at it. That's not a fair assessment because when i get kicked in the balls, I don't get a wonderful gift known as a baby. but i will recount the story of the time i broke my collarbone and still kept playing rugby to save the game by making a tackle that tore up my collarbone much worse and sent me to the hospital with a punctured lung from a fragment of my collarbone. And I would do it again and look forward to it because of all the good I got out of that experience.
Football was an example of something where you are frequently hit and hurt. Rugby is the same way. Some women play it, but most of them are fat, uberfeminist dykes who are out to try to prove they can play with the boys. And they'll admit it....Unfortunately for them they can't really compete with the guys' speed, strength, and agility, and most have trouble hanging with us during endurance training.

My wife is smart, thoughtful, wonderful in every way, and can run circles around Martha Stewart. However, she is a woman and I am a man.

Alright, you've drawn me out.

Now, don't get me wrong; I strongly believe that you are in fact a man, and your wife is in fact a woman. You used the word 'however', though, which implies that you believe these facts to be relevant to your argument, despite what you had already said (which was entirely complementary towards your wife). The argument you were speaking in response to seemed, to me, to be discussing the decision-making process within a (your, in your argument) household, and the reasons why you wouldn't allow your wife an equal position in that process. Have I misread anything thus far?

In the event I haven't, the conclusion I'm forced to come to is that you feel you are inherently more able to make decisions because you have a penis.

Forgive me, but that to me seems like the very thing that every feminist - radical and non- alike - is fighting tooth and nail.

Isn't it 'Masculist'? Anyhow, Bottle, Dempublicent, and Ashmoria should effectively be 'Masculists', seeing as their definition of 'feminism' doesn't discriminate between genders.

If you find "feminist" to be an inadequate name, what would make "masculist" better?

And I'm still not sure why there is so much of a problem with the name. The meaning and focus of any movement will change over time. Why should this one be any different?

Are you admitting that Bill Clinton is not to blame for the failure of patriarchy to keep women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant?

Holy fuck, I'd call that progress.

Troll alert. Bill Clinton is not to blame for the failure of some couples to adopt patriarchical traqditional lifestyles. Why would he be? Patriarchical traditional lifestyles are not synonomous hillbilly buffoonery.

Ok I am not a troll I am also not a feminist. I think that society works best when there is order. I guess I am kind of Confucian. I think that a good Constitution keeps a government orderly and a traditional family model keeps the family orderly.

I run my home. I am a man. I think that is the traditional and therefore natural way of living.

Ah, traditional = natural = good, eh? So, I assume you ride your horse to work, as that's much more "traditional" than driving a car. You also presumably use the barter system exclusively when making purchases, since that's a great deal more "traditional" than modern-day ideas like minted money or that progressive abomination known as the credit card. Do you own slaves or keep indentured servants around, too? Because that's pretty darn traditional!

I blame the breakdown of the family on feminism because the selfish part of it says that if you are unhappy it is ok to leave the marriage even if your unhappiness was reasonably foreseeable when you got married or if you have children and there is no abuse.

I think this is my favorite part of your post. Yes, the horrible, dangerous doctrine of feminism suggests that people should be able to choose to remove themselves from a miserable situation, even if those people have vaginas. That's just crazy talk! :rolleyes:

Alright, you've drawn me out.

Now, don't get me wrong; I strongly believe that you are in fact a man, and your wife is in fact a woman. You used the word 'however', though, which implies that you believe these facts to be relevant to your argument, despite what you had already said (which was entirely complementary towards your wife). The argument you were speaking in response to seemed, to me, to be discussing the decision-making process within a (your, in your argument) household, and the reasons why you wouldn't allow your wife an equal position in that process. Have I misread anything thus far?

In the event I haven't, the conclusion I'm forced to come to is that you feel you are inherently more able to make decisions because you have a penis.

Forgive me, but that to me seems like the very thing that every feminist - radical and non- alike - is fighting tooth and nail.

You pretty much have it. Now let us see which women get snatched up in the marriage market quicker, the feminists or the traditional ladies.

Patriarchical traditional lifestyles are not ...hillbilly buffoonery.

http://www.got.net/~elained/smash.gif

I find it adorable that so many people assume all women (or all feminists) want to get married so badly that they would put up with an insecure little boy who is scared of the nasty girls who talk back at him.

If you actually are interested in hearing from a feminist (which I kinda doubt), then here you go:

A feminist is a person who believes in the social and political equality of the sexes. In my opinion, non-feminists are inherently sub-par individuals who aren't worth dating in the first place. Just like racists, anti-Semites, and other lowlifes, anti-feminists are fun to bait when you want entertainment, but they're usually dull after a while and are almost always lousy in bed.

Hence, I don't have to ever worry about ending up with some dude/dudette who bitches about me being a feminist, because I wouldn't be dating them unless they were a feminist as well. I also don't have to worry about snivveling weaklings who can't handle a strong-willed partner, because I don't date that kind of coward.

I've been in a serious relationship with a man for about 5 years now. I've had other lovers in the past, both male and female, and not a single one has ever been an anti-feminist or been turned off by my feminist beliefs. Indeed, I've found that most non-idiots are feminists these days, though they don't always self-identify as such, so you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel if you want to try to date an anti-feminist.
So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?

You would also never see a women play a man at tennis.

Yeah, you'd never see that! And there's definitely no extremely, extremely famous case of a woman playing a man at tennis and kicking his ass! Nope! ;)

So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?

It confused me how she said that anti-feminists were bad in bed but then says everyone she's slept with was a feminist. Maybe I missed something.

You pretty much have it. Now let us see which women get snatched up in the marriage market quicker, the feminists or the traditional ladies.

Would you mind doing me a favor and enlightening me as to exactly which part of your penis allows you to make better decisions? Really, I'm curious.

Ok I am not a troll You're an.. SM Troll?

Would you mind doing me a favor and enlightening me as to exactly which part of your penis allows you to make better decisions? Really, I'm curious.

Foreskin, probably.

I believe that men and women should be politically, legally and socially equal so I suppose that makes me a feminist. I'm also in a serious relationship with my boyfriend of three and a half years. If I ever get married, I don't plan to get divorced for "trivial reasons" - but that's just me, and I see nothing inherently wrong with divorce. There is no "liberal psycho-babble" at the dinner table in my home, although there is intelligent political (and other) discussion. I'm not a vegetarian.

I doubt that a feminist, as described in the OP, would put up with anyone who thought she was a "nutjob" for believing in equality of the sexes anyway - so what's the point?

It is an old Microsoft DOS text based game. It is a classic. I heard you can download all 10 Kb or so of it and play it but I am too much of a caveman to figure out how.

Here (http://www.infocom-if.org/downloads/downloads.html), it's actually quite easy.

Are you claiming that feminists do not want to go beyond the reforms listed above? Are you claiming that feminists are merely hanging out to make sure that we do not lose the above listed reforms? What about affirmative action?

Affirmative action (gender-wise) is simply steps taken to ensure that men and women are aware of and can take advantage of the "above listed reforms".

What about forcing men to be responsible for children they do not want or not letting them have children that the woman wants to have aborted?

So your complaints are (a) that a man should take responsibility for his own children and (b) that a man can't enslave a woman and force her to undergo pregnancy?

What about glorifying single women for having families without a husband?

Glorifying? Make up your mind. Do feminists want men to take responsibility for their children or do they want women to go it alone?

Here's a clue, any woman, feminist or otherwise, who has been through or seen what it takes to raise even a single child on your own wouldn't "glorify" single motherhood, or single fatherhood for that matter.

Perhaps what you meant by "glorifying" was, in fact, "not calling those single mothers filthy whores." Is that it?

What about claiming that men are all a bunch of rapists?

You say this as if it were common of feminists. It is not.

What about saying it is ok for a woman to have a veto right over her husband?

Veto right on what, exactly?

What about political correctness?

What about it?

You do not think they want that stuff? Then you must be a troll or
ignorant.

All of it? No. Some of it you've basically pulled out of your ass. Some of it? Yes. And the fact that you don't betrays your lack of respect for women.

So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?
I not only don't date sexists, I also don't date racists, anti-semites or serial killers. Why would I ever consider dating anyone who didn't think I am his equal? I just don't date people whose ethics or lack of them turns me off. Like you don't date feminists. Though any woman who isn't a feminist is an idiot or a masochist.

Would you mind doing me a favor and enlightening me as to exactly which part of your penis allows you to make better decisions? Really, I'm curious.


That is an absurd question. Plus, it is not about who makes the better decisions. It is about who has the final say on a subject. I am not going to debate what sex makes better decision makers. The point is that if a decision is to be made, it is up to the man to be a man and take the responsibility of command.

He may be right he may be wrong but he is the one who decides. Where do you guys live? Mars?

So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?

any 'tolerance' that requires you to be ok with racists, fascists, gay bashers, misogynists, etc is an inherently contradictory position.

My wife is smart, thoughtful, wonderful in every way, and can run circles around Martha Stewart. However, she is a woman and I am a man.

Indeed. So you have a penis and she has a vagina, I presume? What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

You pretty much have it. Now let us see which women get snatched up in the marriage market quicker, the feminists or the traditional ladies.
traditional ladies do. if anybody argues that point, you are retarded.

It confused me how she said that anti-feminists were bad in bed but then says everyone she's slept with was a feminist. Maybe I missed something.
she's slept with women and men both. obviously she is confused.

Would you mind doing me a favor and enlightening me as to exactly which part of your penis allows you to make better decisions? Really, I'm curious.
the penis as a whole. because that means he's biologically male. which means his brain is geared more toward logic. yet again, scientifically proven. so stfu.

I not only don't date sexists, I also don't date racists, anti-semites or serial killers. Why would I ever consider dating anyone who didn't think I am his equal? I just don't date people whose ethics or lack of them turns me off. Like you don't date feminists. Though any woman who isn't a feminist is an idiot or a masochit.

Nobody said men and women are not equal. Certainly not me and I started the post. Maybe someone else did and I missed his post.

I also don't date ...serial killers.

Would you date a vampyre? How would you know if they were a vampyre or not before they told you? Don't tell me your perform the vampyre test on every person you date.

I not only don't date sexists, I also don't date racists, anti-semites or serial killers. Why would I ever consider dating anyone who didn't think I am his equal? I just don't date people whose ethics or lack of them turns me off. Like you don't date feminists. Though any woman who isn't a feminist is an idiot or a masochit.

Um, I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that, instead of this becoming a flamewar on how you just disrespected anyone who doesn't agree with you.

traditional ladies do. if anybody argues that point, you are retarded.


she's slept with women and men both. obviously she is confused.


the penis as a whole. because that means he's biologically male. which means his brain is geared more toward logic. yet again, scientifically proven. so stfu.

You're a sad little man, and you have my pity.

You pretty much have it. Now let us see which women get snatched up in the marriage market quicker, the feminists or the traditional ladies.

snatched up? marriage market? what the fuck?

besides, the institution of traditional marriage is pretty much dead anyways - and good fucking riddance.

Though any woman who isn't a feminist is an idiot or a masochist.
actually, smartest type of woman there is. They are out to make their husbands happy. In return, they get a happy life where that is their main concern.

My wife is smart, thoughtful, wonderful in every way, and can run circles around Martha Stewart. However, she is a woman and I am a man.

And by virtue of that you know better in all cases.

You pretty much have it. Now let us see which women get snatched up in the marriage market quicker, the feminists or the traditional ladies.

Has it ever occurred to you that feminists, male and female alike, don't see women as objects to be "snatched up" on any market?

I'm not a commodity that my fiance found on sale somewhere, nor does he see me as such.

actually, smartest type of woman there is. They are out to make their husbands happy. In return, they get a happy life where that is their main concern.

You're both wrong.

You can be a female and not be a feminist because you feel you would prefer to be pampered by your partner (male or female), or you can be female and be a feminist because you prefer your partner be an equal, but you step over the line when you call anyone who doesn't agree with you an idiot because by doing that you're essentially FORCING them to be a certain way when they don't want or agree with it. It's no better than saying gay people are idiots.

So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?

Why on earth should one be compelled to tolerate, love, or understand bigots? Most black people feel no great love for KKK members; most GLBT people feel no great love for the Westboro Baptist Church. Why should women feel any obligation to express their love and understanding toward people who claim them to be inferior beings, which is what one must assume an "anti-feminist" would do?

Why on earth should one be compelled to tolerate, love, or understand bigots? Most black people feel no great love for KKK members; most GLBT people feel no great love for the Westboro Baptist Church. Why should women feel any obligation to express their love and understanding toward people who claim them to be inferior beings, which is what one must assume an "anti-feminist" would do?

Non-feminists are not the same thing as anti-feminists. Non-feminists simply do not personally wish to be treated as equals, for one reason or another, while non-feminists believe all women should be treated as lesser beings. Big difference. Non-feminists aren't bigots.

the penis as a whole. because that means he's biologically male. which means his brain is geared more toward logic. yet again, scientifically proven. so stfu.

The juxtaposition of these statements made me laugh out loud. I'm glad your "more logical" brain allowed you both to completely fail to understand how science works, and to offer the brilliantly well-constructed argument "stfu." Clearly, you are my superior, o manly man.

Excuse me while I go giggle uncontrollably for a while.

snatched up? marriage market? what the fuck?

besides, the institution of traditional marriage is pretty much dead anyways - and good fucking riddance.

See that is so feministy. So subversive. This is what I am talking about. *point* *point*

I'd sooner marry another man!

See that is so feministy. So subversive. This is what I am talking about. *point* *point*

It's also correct, not to mention delicious.

See that is so feministy. So subversive. This is what I am talking about. *point* *point*

Uh, you're an idiot. I'll respond to your post now because you've become an evolved form of troll.

Subversive; to what? To tradition? You haven't answered the other question about tradition - slavery, bigotry, murder, ignorance, going to work on a horse - all traditional traits. Tradition is not inheritly good.

Non-feminists are not the same thing as anti-feminists. Non-feminists simply do not personally wish to be treated as equals, for one reason or another, while non-feminists believe all women should be treated as lesser beings. Big difference. Non-feminists aren't bigots.

in that case the 'non-feminist' is essentially encouraging the existence of anti-feminists and aiding their cause. objectively anti-feminist, you might say.

And by virtue of that you know better in all cases.

No. But there is order. I may not always be right. I may always be wrong, but at least there is order. I think this is a foreign concept to feminists and I may have stumbled upon something that is obvious to me that might not be obvious to some.

Having a man in charge has nothing to do with inequality or men being better at making decisions. It is about having an orderly familial system. This order promotes stability which is something that many may know nothing about as they are blown about through life like the carnal sinners in Dante Allegheri's "Inferno" poem.

in that case the 'non-feminist' is essentially encouraging the existence of anti-feminists and aiding their cause. objectively anti-feminist, you might say.

No, they simply don't wish to force other women to live a certain way.

That is an absurd question. Plus, it is not about who makes the better decisions. It is about who has the final say on a subject. I am not going to debate what sex makes better decision makers. The point is that if a decision is to be made, it is up to the man to be a man and take the responsibility of command.

He may be right he may be wrong but he is the one who decides. Where do you guys live? Mars?

It's an absurd question, yes, but it's in response to the equally absurd position that you hold (and which you confirmed for me in an earlier post).

In the place where I live, a marriage is a partnership. Like in a business relationship (please note, this metaphor is particularly shallow), if one of the partners is forced to make a decision on their own, they need to take ownership and responsibility for the choice they made; however, any critical decisions should be made jointly by the partners, and responsibility for that choice is held equally by them. Now, to extend the metaphor to its utter limit, if one of the partners were to announce one day that [s/]he was The Decider, just how long would you expect that relationship to last?

Now, I've heard you extol a few of your wife's qualities - that shows me that you admire her. However, your inability share responsibility with her shows me that you either don't trust her, or you don't respect her. How then can you say you love her in the absence of either of those?

Non-feminists are not the same thing as anti-feminists. Non-feminists simply do not personally wish to be treated as equals, for one reason or another, while non-feminists believe all women should be treated as lesser beings. Big difference. Non-feminists aren't bigots.

I disagree with your disctinction, but since the post being criticized for its lack of love and understanding specifically used the term "anti-feminist," it's rather a moot point, anyway.

No. But there is order. I may not always be right. I may always be wrong, but at least there is order. I think this is a foreign concept to feminists and I may have stumbled upon something that is obvious to me that might not be obvious to some.

Having a man in charge has nothing to do with inequality or men being better at making decisions. It is about having an orderly familial system. This order promotes stability which is something that many may know nothing about as they are blown about through life like the carnal sinners in Dante Allegheri's "Inferno" poem.

So why not have women make the decisions? Your trite makes no sense. You essentially just say men are in charge and you want it to stay that way because you say so and that's that, but I'm sorry, that's not logic - that's not equality - that's not fair.

No. But there is order. I may not always be right. I may always be wrong, but at least there is order. I think this is a foreign concept to feminists and I may have stumbled upon something that is obvious to me that might not be obvious to some.

oh, it is obvious, alright. just obviously stupid.

I'd sooner marry another man!

nice post! This is perhaps the funniest post yet answering the original post.

traditional ladies do. if anybody argues that point, you are retarded.

she's slept with women and men both. obviously she is confused.

the penis as a whole. because that means he's biologically male. which means his brain is geared more toward logic. yet again, scientifically proven. so stfu.

Fun, another troll.

Nobody said men and women are not equal. Certainly not me and I started the post. Maybe someone else did and I missed his post.

Nope, it was you. Lookie:
That is an absurd question. Plus, it is not about who makes the better decisions. It is about who has the final say on a subject. I am not going to debate what sex makes better decision makers. The point is that if a decision is to be made, it is up to the man to be a man and take the responsibility of command.

He may be right he may be wrong but he is the one who decides. Where do you guys live? Mars?[/quote]

This quite blatantly says that men and women are not equal, since men always get to be the <Bushvoice> "Deciders."


You can be a female and not be a feminist because you feel you would prefer to be pampered by your partner (male or female),

You can be feminist and still wish to be pampered or to pamper your significant other. You can be feminist and wish to be either dominant or submissive to your significant other. What a feminist realizes is that it isn't about the way a relationship is "supposed to be" or the way men and women are "supposed to" interact. Either a man or a woman can seek a relationship in which they are pampered/dominated/submissive/etc. because that is the role they have chosen for themselves

or you can be female and be a feminist because you prefer your partner be an equal, but you step over the line when you call anyone who doesn't agree with you an idiot because by doing that you're essentially FORCING them to be a certain way when they don't want or agree with it. It's no better than saying gay people are idiots.

How does pointing out bigotry force them to do anything?

I disagree with your disctinction, but since the post being criticized for its lack of love and understanding specifically used the term "anti-feminist," it's rather a moot point, anyway.

"So in defense of your feminism, you bash the non-feminists. Interesting. So much for "equality"? So much for tolerance, love and understanding?"

Non-feminists.

First off, I'm not an anti-feminist. To get a general consensus, though, should or should not females be eligible for war draft? Should they be stationed in combat zones just as readily as men currently are?

How does pointing out bigotry force them to do anything?

It's more than just pointing it out when you call someone an idiot for not believing as you do like Bitchkitten has done.

First off, I'm not an anti-feminist. To get a general consensus, though, should or should not females be eligible for war draft? Should they be stationed in combat zones just as readily as men currently are?

Sure. If they pass all the tests, if they make all the marks, if they're just as good as the men, then I think so.

I'd sooner marry another man!



Move to New Jersey :fluffle: :D


marry a Feminist ?


Do they even get married ? Is it even possible ?

ARE YOU NUTS ?:D

Will they spank me when I am a bad boy and have less hair on them than I do ?

So why not have women make the decisions? Your trite makes no sense. You essentially just say men are in charge and you want it to stay that way because you say so and that's that, but I'm sorry, that's not logic - that's not equality - that's not fair.

No offense but that sounds a little wee bit whiney. Who ever said life was fair? If you want to talk about life being fair go talk to a little kid that is dying of cancer or his parents. Life is the way it is. If you go monkeying around with the traditional relationship you get perversion by definition and all the wicked results of single moms, child abuse, divorce, and juvenile delinquents.

So short sighted. *sigh*

No, they simply don't wish to force other women to live a certain way.

and if they take the position that women actually are equal and should be able to do X, then they are being a feminist. if they do not come to the defense of those other women who choose differently than they did, then they are being objectively anti-feminist.

No. But there is order. I may not always be right. I may always be wrong, but at least there is order. I think this is a foreign concept to feminists and I may have stumbled upon something that is obvious to me that might not be obvious to some.

Having a man in charge has nothing to do with inequality or men being better at making decisions. It is about having an orderly familial system. This order promotes stability which is something that many may know nothing about as they are blown about through life like the carnal sinners in Dante Allegheri's "Inferno" poem.

If it has to do with order, then it would work equally well if a woman had all the decision making power for the family while the man submitted. You seem to think that *someone* has to be "in charge," as if collaboration is impossible. But why is it always the man who does so? It can't simply be about order, or either partner could take that role.


No, they simply don't wish to force other women to live a certain way.

...which would suggest that they also do not wish to force men to live a certain way.

Which would mean, in the end, that they are actually feminists!

Would you date a vampyre? How would you know if they were a vampyre or not before they told you? Don't tell me your perform the vampyre test on every person you date.

Vampires are sexy.;)

@Szanth;
Um, I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that, instead of this becoming a flamewar on how you just disrespected anyone who doesn't agree with you.[QUOTE]

No more disrespectful than someone thinking I deserve fewer rights than a man. Or need to obey him. Or that I'm less attactive for marraige.

@Pensacaria
What about him making me happy? I'd certainly be happy to have someone wait on me hand and foot. But it wouldn't be my spouse or boyfriend, because I don't respect someone who always is obedient, fawning or didn't think he was my equal.
BTW, studies show that unmarried women are happier than married ones, though it's the other way around for men.

Sure. If they pass all the tests, if they make all the marks, if they're just as good as the men, then I think so.

But draft specifically? Supposing a couple had young children, both the man and woman are physically able to serve in the military, but the man decided to go back to college. Therefore, the woman gets drafted first--is "I have to stay home and watch the kids" an invalid excuse?

I've heard so many mixed things about this from feminists, but the crazy "RAH RAH I WILL KILL YOU" kind.

It's more than just pointing it out when you call someone an idiot for not believing as you do like Bitchkitten has done.

when the different beliefs actually are indicators of idiocy, then it is right and good to say so.

Well, I wandered in here, so I guess I better say something...probably famous last words, but what the hell.

First off, the OP seems rather trollish. I thought for a minute...well, never mind that. The problem is this: "Modern" feminists are no longer defined by the Susan B. Anthonys of the worls who fought for the right to vote and for reasonably equal wages. Back in those days, women sure as hell couldn't vote, and wages were far less for the same job than they were for men. That is, assuming women could get jobs at all. There's no point in denying that. The movement we now know as the feminist movement made some nice strides in that regard.

The "modern" feminists are defined nowadays by a mixture of causes that are of varying degrees of legitimacy. Wanting to help out rape victims and battered wives is a great idea. Robbing fathers of rights and trying to censor the media, and that includes pornography as well as the movies and TV, is far overstepping the principles of equality. And frankly, the loud-mouthed, man-hating, anti-freedom-of-speech, SCUM-worshipping, belligerent feminists need to stop representing a large segment of the population. Seriously. They're doing for their cause what Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps are doing for Christianity or what Osama bin Laden and Hezbollah are doing for Islam. They do what Stalin and Mao did for Communism, and frankly, if the most extreme feminists got into power, a lot of people would probably die.

Unfortunately, whoever yells, screams, and says the most insane things these days gets to define everything for their cause. It's one reason a person like me doesn't really care to identify with a group of people. It's one reason I don't care to call myself a feminist, and frankly, to me, labeling me as such is an insult. It's the same as labeling me a fascist, a Muslim, or a green-eyed snake - it's an insult to me because none of those things are accurate. And it tells me this much about anyone who would label me by those words - that such people pigeonhole other people rather than understanding them as individuals. And damnit, I am not about to be pigeonholed.


i would like you to give me the name of a few (or even just one) of these the loud-mouthed, man-hating, anti-freedom-of-speech, SCUM-worshipping, belligerent feminists so i can look her up and see if i agree with you.

i have such a hard time dealing with generalizations. examples help me figure out exactly what you mean.

No offense but that sounds a little wee bit whiney. Who ever said life was fair? If you want to talk about life being fair go talk to a little kid that is dying of cancer or his parents. Life is the way it is. If you go monkeying around with the traditional relationship you get perversion by definition and all the wicked results of single moms, child abuse, divorce, and juvenile delinquents.

So short sighted. *sigh*

Uh, no. You're again, an idiot.

We're trying to make life as fair as possible. You don't think life should be fair? Regardless of whether or not it IS currently fair, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that it SHOULD be worked towards.

We go monkeying around with life because it can be made better. You STILL haven't answered ANY questions about tradition being inheritly good. You, sir, are a certified moron. Please discontinue ignoring the questions given to you if you insist on being correct.