Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Personally, I have no problem with equality of sexes. What are your thoughts?

Neither do I, which is why I'm an egalitarian.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Neither do I, which is why I'm an egalitarian. As am I, and I believe that to be completely egalitarian you sometimes need positive discrimination to make up for inadequate life chances and the biggest block to equality of opportunity is not sex, race, creed or even education but poverty.

Equality is great. The people I see who have a problem with Feminism usually do not understand what the current use of the word means. They believes it's about male oppression and cry out as such.

Originally posted by Robtard
Equality is great. The people I see who have a problem with Feminism usually do not understand what the current use of the word means. They believes it's about male oppression and cry out as such.

Yes, they do, and the present US administration truly demonstrates how far we are from equality of the sexes.

I'm all for real equality. I believe everyone should sign up for the draft, equality in divorce court, equality in child custody cases, equal pay for equal work, equal social services for all races and sexes, equal treatment in criminal court etc

I don't believe in equality because men don't give birth.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
As am I, and I believe that to be completely egalitarian you sometimes need positive discrimination to make up for inadequate life chances and the biggest block to equality of opportunity is not sex, race, creed or even education but poverty.
This disgusts me completely and utterly at a point of principle. That you would not only justify the use of racial discrimination but implicate a moral imperative to do so completely disgusts and revolts me.

How dare you call yourself an anti-racist when you consider racist policies an ethical obligation.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
This disgusts me completely and utterly at a point of principle. That you would not only justify the use of racial discrimination but implicate a moral imperative to do so completely disgusts and revolts me. Um, not what I said... but yeah, quota's from all kind of disadvantaged backgrounds including white working class people with little access to education and black working class with little access to education and girls from ethnic minorities if done right are all good things. Shame that triggers you pal.

Uh... Yea see the thing is... I don't have a problem with "equality of the sexes"

But we're pretty much equals under the law now. So bored feminists have to find shit to do. So they ***** about a bunch of shit that I can't be bothered with, such as the sexism in Mario games. So I don't really identify with them. Because 9 times out of 10 they are taking stances I don't share or just stances on issues I don't care about.

I think the sentiment behind things like affirmative action are well intended, but I think the most qualified person should get the nod.

Now if it can be proven that there are racist, sexist, or religious discrimination leading to a person being overlooked, then that should be fixed.

I also agree that the most qualified person should get the job. The quota system is stupid. If you want more of X group to get Y job, then invest in helping to make them capable of doing so as the most qualified applicant to that job, Anything less than that is just a shortcut which results in lower standards.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Um, not what I said... but yeah, quota's from all kind of disadvantaged backgrounds including white working class people with little access to education and black working class with little access to education and girls from ethnic minorities if done right are all good things. Shame that triggers you pal.
I don't care if you're disadvantaging or advantaging white people on the basis of their identity. Regardless of who it's being done to I consider it wrong, because that's what it means to have a stance founded on principles.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Uh... Yea see the thing is... I don't have a problem with "equality of the sexes"

But we're pretty much equals under the law now. So bored feminists have to find shit to do. So they ***** about a bunch of shit that I can't be bothered with, such as the sexism in Mario games. So I don't really identify with them. Because 9 times out of 10 they are taking stances I don't share or just stances on issues I don't care about. It's odd how sarkesian has to pick examples from over 30 ****ing years ago.

Has she heard of tomb raider?

i'm a true feminist.

Women should have to sign up for the draft to vote like men
Women should be punished equally for crimes.
Women should pay for exactly half of everything in marraiges
There should be equal pay for equal work
They should receive equal treatment in divorce court
Men should get equal maternal leave when their wife has a child

Originally posted by Raisen

Men should get equal maternal leave when their wife has a child

To be fair, we do not have to give birth so I'll give them the longer leave time. Breastfeeding and changing shit diapers isn't all unicorns and rainbows either. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
To be fair, we do not have to give birth so I'll give them the longer leave time. Breastfeeding and changing shit diapers isn't all unicorns and rainbows either. lol

but the early days are important for forming tight bonds. shouldn't the father also be given the opportunity?

You get two weeks bro. Geez

Originally posted by socool8520
You get two weeks bro. Geez

it's cool. i don't speak about this for my own sake. i'm not going to have any more kids and i don't want to get married. i'm just saying...

lol. It's all good man. I just see how this particular issue should favor women. They have to have the baby, recover from their insides being demolished, and bond with the baby.

Just a bit more work than changing some diapers and having your hand squeezed really hard right?

Originally posted by socool8520
lol. It's all good man. I just see how this particular issue should favor women. They have to have the baby, recover from their insides being demolished, and bond with the baby.

Just a bit more work than changing some diapers and having your hand squeezed really hard right?

yeah. some things just can't be equal for common sense sake.

^ It's just biology man. They can't beat the best of us at sports and we can't have babies. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
^ It's just biology man. They can't beat the best of us at sports and we can't have babies. lol They can't run businesses either

Originally posted by socool8520
^ It's just biology man. They can't beat the best of us at sports and we can't have babies. lol

females are more flexible too. so maybe they are better at ballet and gymnastics?

Originally posted by Raisen
females are more flexible too. so maybe they are better at ballet and gymnastics?

Okay sports that matter

Originally posted by socool8520
Okay sports that matter

Originally posted by Foxsteak
They can't run businesses either

I'm sure there are some successful businesses run by women. Oprah owns everything doesn't she?

Originally posted by socool8520
I'm sure there are some successful businesses run by women. Oprah owns everything doesn't she? some dude runs the operations of it. she's the face and voice.

^ Isn't that how it works for all CEOs? lol

Originally posted by socool8520
^ Isn't that how it works for all CEOs? lol

no

There's always some brain trust are team of people behind the scenes making the big wig look good.

Originally posted by socool8520
There's always some brain trust are team of people behind the scenes making the big wig look good.


and you consider that "running" the business?

Part of leadership is delegation and constructing the best team/employees.

Originally posted by Raisen
females are more flexible too. so maybe they are better at ballet and gymnastics?

Men and women do different skills in dance and gymnastics. Although, if I am being honest, men can typically do women's skills, but women often cannot do men's skills.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Men and women do different skills in dance and gymnastics. Although, if I am being honest, men can typically do women's skills, but women often cannot do men's skills.

they are generally naturally more flexible but men can do some incredible strength feats in gymnastics that i'm sure would be impossible for most women.

gymnastics is actually entertaining. the uneven bars and floor routine are really good

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Uh... Yea see the thing is... I don't have a problem with "equality of the sexes"

But we're pretty much equals under the law now. So bored feminists have to find shit to do. So they ***** about a bunch of shit that I can't be bothered with, such as the sexism in Mario games. So I don't really identify with them. Because 9 times out of 10 they are taking stances I don't share or just stances on issues I don't care about.

Bingo.

Oh, and yep, current 3rd wave feminism isn't very good:

vRquPxdHNGE

People can check out Sargons "why do people hate feminism" series, there is like 10-11 parts total.

"Not muslims"

LOL

Originally posted by socool8520
Part of leadership is delegation and constructing the best team/employees. Has Oprah employed them, or did they shoehorn her into the face role?

ua8T4nSTCWA

First video in series. Anyone confuses about why feminism is disliked so much these days will no longer be confused after.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
As am I, and I believe that to be completely egalitarian you sometimes need positive discrimination to make up for inadequate life chances and the biggest block to equality of opportunity is not sex, race, creed or even education but poverty.

Poverty brings out the great or bad in anything alive.

Feminism was a political movement and it has served its purpose. Time to kill it.

I say we just do nothing. If women suddenly start throwing themselves into cars for something, and it becomes a big problem, let them have it.

Originally posted by socool8520
I'm sure there are some successful businesses run by women. Oprah owns everything doesn't she?

Notice the feminists have an issue with the percentage of female CEO's in this country but...I never see them complaining that most people who work in jobs like being a garbageman are...men. Most in construction are...men. They never get upset about those careers though. Weird.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/975/223/4bc.jpg

Absolutely not.

I am all for supporting true Feminism, but I draw the line at FemaNAZIISMM.

What is "true feminism" though. There's really two definitions I see:
Definition of feminism
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Merriam Webster

The former of the two I agree with, at least to the extent that men and women should be equal under the law and have the same opportunities, I find the idea that there should be an equality of outcome between the two groups absurd though. I don't think the name feminist really conveys this message though, which is why I identify as a legal egalitarian.

The latter of the two is an identitarian collectivist movement that seems to push for equality of outcome and is blind to the fact that men and women have equal rights and for the most part have equal social freedoms, and that laughs in the face of any who suggest there are issues men have that should be addressed. And this type of feminism has become one arm of the intersectional social justice movement, and it's absolute cancer.

It should be addressed that both sexes being equal under the law and that neither of the two genders should serve as a barrier to opportunity is a value most people agree with, HOWEVER, just because a person or movement identifies as feminist which people can link with the value of gender equality should not serve as a shield from criticism, and a lot of the criticisms of the modern feminism movement are extremely valid... which is why they mainly come from people who believe the same point of principle expressed in the first definition.

B-b-but who's gonna make the sandwiches now?

Manly Chiefs like Gordan Ramsey.


That or little cucks.

i like my sammiches with bacon egg cheese and hp sauce

why would you need to go over 90mph

Because its is fun?

Which banned person is this who keeps trolling the mod?

most likely TI

Originally posted by socool8520
Which banned person is this who keeps trolling the mod?

Hard to Guess. They are SO Many.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
most likely TI

Time Immemorial? I don't remember that person being that bad, but I didn't post in the GDF often until recently.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Hard to Guess. They are SO Many.

This is true.

Originally posted by socool8520
This is true.

I would say it wasn't Timmy. Timmy had more of a Directin for his douchery. ...speaking of which....What happened to Quan?

Surt hasn't posted in a little while so he hasn't shown up to insult him.

Well it is the weekend.

Jokes aside, my view generally fits into line of that presented by DMB.

The issue with the feminist movement currently, the third wave, is that it seems to complain and attack petty non-issues, like where a mans legs are positioned when sitting down. When they do try to address something that has a semblance of a legitimate point - such the lacking number of women in certain fields - they only point it out for comfy high paying jobs and not the more gritty, heavy labour positions with a high injury rate that men tend to dominate.

Furthermore, third wave feminists seem to be attacking their predecessors in the second wave, which basically constitutes to eating their own movement. For example, a lot of third waves feminists were up in arms about a second wave feminist like Germaine Greer for refusing to accept transgender women into the overall feminist movement. Furthermore, the third wave often points fingers at the second wave claiming that it is a racist movement that only looked out for the interests of white women.

Modern third wave feminism doesn't seem to be doing anyone any favours.

Originally posted by RHaggis
Jokes aside, my view generally fits into line of that presented by DMB U know somethings wrong when you start a sentence like this.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
U know somethings wrong when you start a sentence like this.

Originally posted by RHaggis

For example, a lot of third waves feminists were up in arms about a second wave feminist like Germaine Greer for refusing to accept transgender women into the overall feminist movement. Furthermore, the third wave often points fingers at the second wave claiming that it is a racist movement that only looked out for the interests of white women.

Right, partaking in a social equality movement removes you from criticism for discriminative stances.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Right, partaking in a social equality movement removes you from criticism for discriminative stances.

You seem to have missed my point entirely and in your failure to comprehend it have committed a strawman.

The point is that feminism seems to be eating itself, not that being a part of a particular movement makes you devoid of criticism.

Originally posted by RHaggis
You seem to have missed my point entirely and in your failure to comprehend it have committed a strawman.

The point is that feminism seems to be eating itself, not that being a part of a particular movement makes you devoid of criticism.
Recognizing the mistakes of a movement is not the same as eating it.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Personally, I have no problem with equality of sexes. What are your thoughts?

Feminism as a concept is great.

As an institution, it makes great theater.

Men and women are equal in the west, now; perhaps feminism should seek to help women overseas who are literally treated as animals.


Women in the west have it great, it's time to stop blaming sexism and the patriarchy on their own choices and shortcomings.

I think the whole atheist movement and FemFreq bullshit was what sparked the whole shit.

Atheist talk about how christianity is dumb, yet they are mostly men who like women. Women were obviously treated differently because they care more about social issues rather than actual science. This was a huge difference and trolls leaped onto it. I mean, lots of comedy is based around gender roles in society, so is literally 90% of all entertainment. Sexuality is a part of human nature and now everything has just been blown out into the open to the point where conservative men just kinda don't bother anymore only for the SJWs to turn on each other.

And then you have Anita Sarkesian. A millenial "gamer" who claims to know anything more than a communications studies course and barely knows anything about humanities or video games (I mean, she doesn't even know who Lara Croft is) and she only got famous because of trolls making fun of her. She's famous for being stupid..... In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she liked Bernie, then leapt on Hillary.

Short answer --> No

Originally posted by Foxsteak
I think the whole atheist movement and FemFreq bullshit was what sparked the whole shit.

Atheist talk about how christianity is dumb, yet they are mostly men who like women.
Maybe if the Chrisitianity movement didn't spend centuries helping enforce sexism, there wouldn't have been as big a need for feminism in the first place.

But sure, the sexuality of atheists is the problem here.

Originally posted by Trocity
Men and women are equal in the west, now; perhaps feminism should seek to help women overseas who are literally treated as animals.


Women in the west have it great, it's time to stop blaming sexism and the patriarchy on their own choices and shortcomings.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Recognizing the mistakes of a movement is not the same as eating it.
You're acting as if modern feminism is somehow correcting the mistakes of past feminism, however feminism in the past was observably a much more reasonable movement than it is today.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
You're acting as if modern feminism is somehow correcting the mistakes of past feminism, however feminism in the past was observably a much more reasonable movement than it is today.
That's not what I said. But criticizing modern feminism for critiquing the history of their movement is stupid.

I'm sure there's plenty of other valid critiques to be made, but that isn't one of them.

Originally posted by Trocity
Men and women are equal in the west, now; perhaps feminism should seek to help women overseas who are literally treated as animals.


Women in the west have it great, it's time to stop blaming sexism and the patriarchy on their own choices and shortcomings.



average woman has more liberty and less responsibility than the average man

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's not what I said. But criticizing modern feminism for critiquing the history of their movement is stupid.

I'm sure there's plenty of other valid critiques to be made, but that isn't one of them.
Except one of the critiques of their history that Rhaggis mentioned is largely incoherent. The claim that feminism before third wave feminism was somehow racist is completely unfounded, and what they're really complaining about is that feminism in the past didn't place a disproportionate focus on women of color. Basically their critique of feminism comes from the fact that it wasn't a racialized movement in the past and they think it should be one that is racialized now, and I think that's an absurd thing to claim racism over.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maybe if the Chrisitianity movement didn't spend centuries helping enforce sexism, there wouldn't have been as big a need for feminism in the first place.

But sure, the sexuality of atheists is the problem here. I think you completely missed the point.......

He seems to be on a **** Christianity bend tonight.

Just for clarity's sake, I was saying that the atheist movement, like the science industry, was dominated by men. When women went onto the scene, social issues such as race and sexism (which of course has roots in le evil christianity) were brought about despite the appeal of the movement being atheists can't into science.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Recognizing the mistakes of a movement is not the same as eating it.

The thing is, the third wave aren't merely "recognising the mistakes" of the movement, they are creating them from thin air. As DMB already highlighted, they made the second wave out to be racist with no actual backing for this. They just assumed that since a lot of them were white woman then surely it must be racist, right?

Instead of building off of what the past incarnations of feminism have done they're turning around and spitting on it. While simultaneously conjuring up other stupid bullshit like manspreading or mansplaining to complain about while women in third world countries genuinely suffer from proper sexism.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
He seems to be on a **** Christianity bend tonight.

If it was Islam being discussed. Would he be so aggressive, I wonder?

No, no, no, no, no. Old conservative men are the hypocrites. They're so Islamophobic yet, not all Muslims are terrorists and 1000 years ago, Christians did crusades.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
No, no, no, no, no. Old conservative men are the hypocrites. They're so Islamophobic yet, not all Muslims are terrorists and 1000 years ago, Christians did crusades.

LOL.

The classic crusade argument. What makes it even more funny, even putting the fact that is an obviously out of date example, is that the first crusade was called as a Christian retaliation to Muslim aggression in Turkey, Iberia and elsewhere, iirc.

Originally posted by RHaggis
LOL.

The classic crusade argument. What makes it even more funny, even putting the fact that is an obviously out of date example, is that the first crusade was called as a Christian retaliation to Muslim aggression in Turkey, Iberia and elsewhere, iirc.
Something tells me he was being sarcastic.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Something tells me he was being sarcastic.
Oh he knows, this line right here "What makes it even more funny" indicates that the person he's replying to is already poking fun at it and he's responding to pile on.

Indeed, and when people do legit use the crusades thing though...it is also all kinds of hilarious. If you need to dip back to the Crusades to find something bad Christians did in comparison to Islam...there is a problem.

On top of that, you really wouldn't have to go back all the way to the crusades to find abhorrent Christian behavior. So it's more just being lazy, shouting "crusades!" is the new "racism!" shout.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Something tells me he was being sarcastic.

I'm aware. I was laughing with him about the argument he sarcastically presented, not at him.

feminism is tarded.

I love shoeonhead's vids on Feminism...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myu3zwfGGwc

Is this what Scribble meant as actual discussion in the GDF?

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Is this what Scribble meant as actual discussion in the GDF? Good question


http://i.imgur.com/14COhR2.png

Yes.

I don't even have a car.

Originally posted by RHaggis
The thing is, the third wave aren't merely "recognising the mistakes" of the movement, they are creating them from thin air. As DMB already highlighted, they made the second wave out to be racist with no actual backing for this. They just assumed that since a lot of them were white woman then surely it must be racist, right?

Instead of building off of what the past incarnations of feminism have done they're turning around and spitting on it. While simultaneously conjuring up other stupid bullshit like manspreading or mansplaining to complain about while women in third world countries genuinely suffer from proper sexism.
Discrimination was absolutely a problem with earlier feminists movements, as it was with literally any social movement ever.

There were many feminists who excluded black women, just as they were many civil rights fighters who excluded black women from their push for equality.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Just for clarity's sake, I was saying that the atheist movement, like the science industry, was dominated by men. When women went onto the scene, social issues such as race and sexism (which of course has roots in le evil christianity) were brought about despite the appeal of the movement being atheists can't into science.
Ok. thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by Raisen
feminism is tarded.

Your comment reminds me of this:

https://i.redd.it/xjkp9z0ptzuz.jpg

I laughed at that image. Dammit, it's so dumb but funny.

Naturally the conservative thinks anorexia is a good thing...

I assumed this was in jest Rock

Originally posted by socool8520
I assumed this was in jest Rock I was referring to the conservative in the picture who's smiling at his life threatening condition.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I was referring to the conservative in the picture who's smiling at his life threatening condition.

Well stick figures tend to be skinny. lol

Feminism isn't, but misandry is.

Your Mum know you use words like that?

This actually fits here too now that I think about it:

Originally posted by Surtur
LMFAO, how did I miss this when it came out? It's from January.

5xJI4zYR5o8

Reasons the commercial says women need not just equal pay, but need to get more than men:

-their haircuts are more expensive
-their underwear is more expensive
-men don't need new outfits for every occasion
-men don't know shoes "make the outfit"
-men don't know the joy of choosing the right shoe

Questions raised in the commercial by the narrator: Should we seriously get paid less than someone who applies body lotion to his face?

I can't even tell if this is satire.

@ Adam_Poe:

By the same token, Rosa Parks was not the first black woman who took a stand on bus seating discrimination. Civil rights leaders rejected a few other courageous women, on account of their skin tone being "too dark" for white people to sympathise with.

I understand that pragmatism is a fact of life, but my problem is that one persons political expediancy is anothers hyprocrisy.

At the least, I feel there should be rules of engagement where sides only call the other team out on genuines grievances. Instead, you have both sides being hypocritical, and calling each other out for the exact same/similar hypocrisy.

And the "All's fair in war" doesn't sit well with me. Villiages get annihilated by two sides of a conflict all the time.. I want whatever side I support to at least value ethical conduct, and try NOT to do whatever works, no matter how unsavory..

Originally posted by cdtm
@ Adam_Poe:

By the same token, Rosa Parks was not the first black woman who took a stand on bus seating discrimination. Civil rights leaders rejected a few other courageous women, on account of their skin tone being "too dark" for white people to sympathise with.


Yeah, wasn't there like a 15 yr. old girl who did it too?

Feminism >>>>>> Second Wave Feminism > Third Wave Feminism

Why is the gap between the second and third wave not bigger?

To answer the OP's question: YES

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Why is the gap between the second and third wave not bigger?
A matter of taste tbh. But you may be onto something

Modern Feminism is just proof of the old adage of that The Left Poisons everything it touches.

Originally posted by Stigma
A matter of taste tbh. But you may be onto something Third wave feminism is literally retarded.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Third wave feminism is literally retarded.

Funny thing is...there are countries where feminism is still needed. But these feminists don't care.

So you have 3rd wave feminists whining about 11st world problems. Meanwhile in some countries women are now just getting the ability to drive a car lol.

Progress? Maybe?

Originally posted by Robtard
Equality is great. The people I see who have a problem with Feminism usually do not understand what the current use of the word means. They believes it's about male oppression and cry out as such.

^

I like how so many went on to prove my first post correct. Thanks guys

Originally posted by Robtard
^

I like how so many went on to prove my first post correct. Thanks guys

It's more that a lot of third wave feminists don't understand what it's about.

Don't blame others if these dipshits are too stupid to be actual feminists.

Robbie just quoted himself to prove his own point.

https://i2.wp.com/thats-normal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/That-is-so-sad-GIF.gif

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Robbie just quoted himself to prove his own point.

https://i2.wp.com/thats-normal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/That-is-so-sad-GIF.gif And the post is about him thinking people are concerned about male oppression.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

I like how so many went on to prove my first post correct. Thanks guys
Because people who identify as part of the feminist movement use the excuse of "gender equality" to push a bunch of ridiculous or anti-male sexist shit...

Just like the same people who identify as anti-racist, such as Steve Zodiac, that push for things that are blatantly racist through the effect of racial discrimination, or another example of this is the DNC trying to discourage straight white men from applying for a job to make things "more diverse" or the BBC holding special training and positions exclusively open to racial minorities or women, in effect discriminating against white men.

Or the people who identify with the political movement Antifa who are a bunch of violent political ideologues who generally advocate for communism and who are anti-free speech, but people give them a pass because they identify as being against fascism.

You can't throw around a slogan or movement name that you define as a specific principle and use it to excuse the horrendous shit done in the name of the movement.

Originally posted by cdtm
@ Adam_Poe:

By the same token, Rosa Parks was not the first black woman who took a stand on bus seating discrimination. Civil rights leaders rejected a few other courageous women, on account of their skin tone being "too dark" for white people to sympathise with.

I understand that pragmatism is a fact of life, but my problem is that one persons political expediancy is anothers hyprocrisy.

At the least, I feel there should be rules of engagement where sides only call the other team out on genuines grievances. Instead, you have both sides being hypocritical, and calling each other out for the exact same/similar hypocrisy.

And the "All's fair in war" doesn't sit well with me. Villiages get annihilated by two sides of a conflict all the time.. I want whatever side I support to at least value ethical conduct, and try NOT to do whatever works, no matter how unsavory..

Rosa Parks was chosen, because the first young woman was a teenage girl who was pregnant out of wedlock.

Political expediency is not hypocrisy, it is realism. The African-American Civil Rights Movement was not necessarily against Communists, homosexuals, or unmarried teenage mothers, but they knew the group to whom they needed to appeal was. That is a minority, who needs the support of the majority if they hope to secure any rights for marginalized peoples, recognizing the reality on the ground. In that situation, they could take the moral high ground and get nowhere with the people they needed to help them, or they could sideline controversial supporters, so they could actually get something done.

Originally posted by Foxsteak
And the post is about him thinking people are concerned about male oppression.

There are studies that show that being a Leftist Progressive does actually lower your testosterone. So yeah. Being a Beta Cuck makes you more likely to be a Leftist.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
There are studies that show that being a Leftist Progressive does actually lower your testosterone. So yeah. Being a Beta Cuck makes you more likely to be a Leftist.

People at Buzzfeed found out this the hard way....

Originally posted by Surtur
Buzzfeed Crew Shocked To Learn They Have Low Testosterone Levels

Originally posted by Surtur
People at Buzzfeed found out this the hard way....

OH I doubt they found it very "HARD" at all!!!!!!!

Only the Asian dude came anywhere close to normal testosterone levels...damn.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
There are studies that show that being a Leftist Progressive does actually lower your testosterone. So yeah. Being a Beta Cuck makes you more likely to be a Leftist. I found out that the guys on buzzfeed have testosterone levels of around 200 to 300.

Healthy is between 200 and 1100. ermm

Hi Time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your comment reminds me of this:

https://i.redd.it/xjkp9z0ptzuz.jpg

I laughed at that image. Dammit, it's so dumb but funny.

it's good for the lulz. don't want to expand on what feminism has done to many countries. it should be obvious. I'm definitely not going to open any minds so phuck it

There should be like a before and after for Tumblrinas.

Originally posted by Surtur
People at Buzzfeed found out this the hard way....

holy shiit. that was the buzzfeed crew? I've seen this proven true all the time in real life. really effeminate men tend to be more liberal.

Originally posted by Stigma
Feminism >>>>>> Second Wave Feminism > Third Wave Feminism

Originally posted by Raisen
holy shiit. that was the buzzfeed crew? I've seen this proven true all the time in real life. really effeminate men tend to be more liberal. progressive
FTFY

Originally posted by Raisen
holy shiit. that was the buzzfeed crew? I've seen this proven true all the time in real life. really effeminate men tend to be more liberal.

Yep, 270 is the lowest you should have and only one was above it lol. The average is like 500-600. Anyways, this seems appropriate:

https://i.imgur.com/4oGGW6I.png

Originally posted by Raisen
holy shiit. that was the buzzfeed crew? I've seen this proven true all the time in real life. really effeminate men tend to be more liberal.
If you want to extrapolate from that sample, it could be argued, yes.

But imho it is still rather small sample to reach definite conclusions.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, 270 is the lowest you should have and only one was above it lol. The average is like 500-600. Anyways, this seems appropriate:

https://i.imgur.com/4oGGW6I.png I bet she'd be awesome in bed.

Originally posted by Stigma
If you want to extrapolate from that sample, it could be argued, yes.

But imho it is still rather small sample to reach definite conclusions. Have you seen nu-males?

Originally posted by Foxsteak
Have you seen nu-males?
The what?

EDIT: Ok, Googled it. Well...that is a sight to behold.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Nu-male

**** it, ED probably will tell you all you need to know.

My checklist: glasses, neck beard, receding hairline, fat, feminist qualities, whiney, card games, some weird pony fetish etc.

At the next big debate between a republican and democrat I just want the repub to flat out ask their opponent how many genders they think there are.

Just let them essentially defeat themselves, all you need to do is give their crazy ideas a platform.

Watch as the people who claim to be all about science give you an answer that has nothing to do with it and everything to do with feelings.

^ What I want to see is a political competition where you can not attack your opponent. No BS campaign ads slandering the opposition. No digging up their skeletons. Just debate the issues that will affect our country and prove to the American people why you have the best solutions. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ What I want to see is a political competition where you can not attack your opponent. No BS campaign ads slandering the opposition. No digging up their skeletons. Just debate the issues that will affect our country and prove to the American people why you have the best solutions. I don't think that is too much to ask. That is exactly what Trump tried to do...

"If honesty was suddenly introduced into politics the whole system would break down!" - George Carlin 1996

^ Did he not drag out sexual assault victims in front of Hillary? Not exactly the higher ground is it? They were both attacking each other as has been the case for a while now. it's sad the a political debate looks alarmingly similar to a schoolyard shit talk session.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ What I want to see is a political competition where you can not attack your opponent. No BS campaign ads slandering the opposition. No digging up their skeletons. Just debate the issues that will affect our country and prove to the American people why you have the best solutions. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Yes, I'd be okay with running a "gotta run a clean campaign" rule.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ What I want to see is a political competition where you can not attack your opponent. No BS campaign ads slandering the opposition. No digging up their skeletons. Just debate the issues that will affect our country and prove to the American people why you have the best solutions. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is why I think repubs should just ask them questions and let them defeat themselves just by talking lol. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

"How many genders are there" would just be hilarious. It doesn't actually have a complicated answer, despite what some want to believe.

Well, while I think that the whole several genders stance is stupid, I think it is irrelevant to the debate. I want them to strictly talk the big issues. Economy, Education, Immigration, Defense, etc. Prove to me why your plan is the best and I will be impressed. Turn it into a "Yo Momma" debate, and you lose all of my respect.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ Did he not drag out sexual assault victims in front of Hillary? Not exactly the higher ground is it? They were both attacking each other as has been the case for a while now. it's sad the a political debate looks alarmingly similar to a schoolyard shit talk session. She bought all the media to portray Trump as a sex pervert when that could have been the future first lady.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation Date: 5 Nov, 2016
https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ Date: June 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-rape-case_us_581a31a5e4b0c43e6c1d9834 Date: Nov, 2 2016

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/woman-says-she-was-groped-by-trump-on-plane-it-was-an-assault-w444700 Date: Oct, 13 2016
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-sexual-assault-groping-allegations-anthony-gilberthorpe-jessica-leeds-a7362761.html Date: Oct 15, 2016

But if you look at this...
UCJfjihFnsw
This could have been your first lady with the talks of "Oh, well you wanted pedo Trump to be president, so why you complaining bro?"

I'm not defending her, but I will not overlook the fact that both parties decided that the best way to win was to attack the other person instead of explaining their stances and elaborating on how they would achieve their campaign promises. That is what I take issue with regardless of who is doing it.

On the topic:

When you see one feminist go after another feminist as an anti-feminist for a simple disagreement on child support payouts, where one insists something that makes fathers look bad and the other insists she works in that field and things aren't nearly that bad, and that's ALL they disagree about, you start to wonder if the feminism = fascism..

Bernie: I agree with everything Hillary has said, but let us go further and promise the moon on a stick
Trump: I will say things to piss off Hillary
Hillary: I'm still here *cough* you know? I'm just as good as Obama.....

I would be more willing to get behind the movement if they were trying to aid women's issues in other countries where women truly are oppressed, rather than bitching about sexist AC or some craziness like that.

Originally posted by socool8520
Well, while I think that the whole several genders stance is stupid, I think it is irrelevant to the debate. I want them to strictly talk the big issues. Economy, Education, Immigration, Defense, etc. Prove to me why your plan is the best and I will be impressed. Turn it into a "Yo Momma" debate, and you lose all of my respect.

I disagree about its relevancy. It's not just about genders. Remember, a common complaint is "conservatives hate science! blah blah climate change!".

It's important to demonstrate if they overall support science or if they only do when it benefits them and when they can whine about Trump.

Someone screaming "but science!" about climate change and then saying "yeah, 63 genders exist"...I would think you would agree such a person shouldn't be taken seriously.

They've made science into a religion now. They think you can *believe* in science. Take that in for a second lol. It's like a religion to them. Science is to them today what a Kabbalah bracelet was in the late 90s: trendy.

I can separate one crazy notion from the legitimacy of another. If you want to identify as bisexual unicorn panda bear, so be it. If you have good ideas about fixing our education while doing it, I'll consider your approach. It just means I won't go to you for biology advice. lol

I'm a bisexual pandaunicornbro.