Feminism: Is it a bad thing?

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.

YouTube video

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?

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 👆

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.

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

[/B]

Originally posted by Robtard
^

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

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.