CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Problem is, I'm pretty sure these WOKE Feminist #MeToo types see themselves as saints or think very highly of themselves
-
The Sietch will be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance tomorrow (Thursday, 2 May 2024). Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
The 'Dangerous Rise' Of Men Who Won’t Date Woke Women
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
Problem is, I'm pretty sure these WOKE Feminist #MeToo types see themselves as saints or think very highly of themselves
Fleiur
Well-known member
Yeah. Once you don't have self awareness it's easy, I guess. And you just have to look at their ways and beliefs to know that they are not worth listening to. Abortion. Okay. Pre marital sex/Hook up. Okay. Polygamous relationships. Okay.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
So are we going to reach a point, where a man will be pressured into a sexual encounter he doesn't want because if he says no he will be shamed and ostracized as a women hating reactionary because women are owed sex for...reasons?
Whatever happened to "you aren't owed sex"?
Agency and autonomy and all that stuff feminists say they care so much about.
Or can they just flat out admit, "men aren't owed or don't deserve XYZ, but women are".
Please?
Whatever happened to "you aren't owed sex"?
Agency and autonomy and all that stuff feminists say they care so much about.
Or can they just flat out admit, "men aren't owed or don't deserve XYZ, but women are".
Please?
There's a point before it becomes creepy. A 30 year old dating a 16 year old? Creepy.
A 30 year old dating a 25 year old? Acceptable.
A 35 year old dating a 28 year old? Acceptable.
A 40 year old dating a 30 year old? Acceptable.
The biological advantage to the woman is dating a man who tends to have a better job and more things when he's older, as opposed to a younger man, even if she might relate to him better (might). For the man, the younger woman is more fertile and has a longer fertile period to go.
Uh...most women tend to lose fertility in their early to mid forties. Most women are still fertile in their 30s, though less so than their 20s and even less so in their 40s. It can take a young couple months to a year to produce a kid. It can take women in their thirties about 1-2 years and a woman in her forties might be around 2-3 years.
Contrary to popular belief, sleeping with someone once won't just produce a kid. Generally it requires months, though that can vary based on a great deal of circumstances. That's why when a woman produces a kid that isn't yours, chances are that while it might have been a one-off thing, the reality is that she's been having hat affair for months.
...What? How would that law possibly get passed anywhere in the US?
That's obvious eugenics. It would be struck down by SCOTUS in a heartbeat.
No.
You have to realize that this is coming from a very, very specific group of women that is narrow even within the field of SJWs.
- Said woman must be far left or at least moderately left.
- Said woman is generally reaching the age of 30 or is even older and is starting to question whether or not she'll meet a man whom she is both attracted to and can coexist peacefully.
- Said woman is unable to obtain a man she is willing to settle with.
- Said woman must be angry enough to demand that men fix the problem.
In such a case, most of the younger women won't be able to empathize, because...
- Some of those younger women are competing for the older men the older women want.
- Those women were raised to be told you don't need a man, so there's no reason to agree that other women are entitled, especially when that edges the playing field in your direction, not theirs.
- Those women who are upset are generally going to hold less persuasive power because they're less attractive, so no one cares.
- Some of these women don't listen to their own parents about not getting involved with certain men, why does anyone think they're going to listen to some old, bitter harpy who wants the same man?
- The women who aren't going after older guys are more worried about going after younger guys and so they don't care.
- The argument of forcing anyone into a relationship generally does not play well with women, who are the genetic selectors in the human species. Especially young women who were raised to believe that this sort of thing was a personal choice.
That's not how this works.
Society is generated towards treating women as the prize. While women may not appreciate being treated as something to be won when it twists into treating them as objects or pets, they most certainly do appreciate things being done for their benefit. And that is natural; men work to protect and make women happy, so it is natural that women expect men to continue to do so, even if they don't have to give anything in return. In fact, some women are accustomed and expect such.
The feminist movement is all about protecting women. Equal pay, equal voting rights, and so forth weren't about the ideology of equality, but rather giving women greater economic and social protections from predatory men. The problem this has created is that it makes it more difficult for women to find a man they're willing to settle for and therefore although they have obtained a greater social and economic security, many are beginning to pay the price in loneliness. And in order to cope with that, they need to either understand where society has led them wrong and address that--which is long and difficult...or blame it on someone else.
That's not to say that everything the feminist movement has done is evil or wrong, it's just that the entire point was never about equality. Once you understand that, it's easier to assess and address a feminist in what they're actually afraid of and then determine what they really want.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
It’s towards white people, plenty of whom are self-hating, more insane stuff has happened in the past
Pedophile who sexually abused baby and 14 other children is RELEASED from prison after transitioning to become woman
A CONVICTED child-abuser who molested 15 children, including a one-year-old will soon be freed from prison after transitioning into a woman. Josie Smith, 23, was jailed in 2015 and officials recomm…
www.the-sun.com
And believe insane stuff
It depends though on how much insanity is embraced still
It’s towards white people, plenty of whom are self-hating, more insane stuff has happened in the past
Pedophile who sexually abused baby and 14 other children is RELEASED from prison after transitioning to become woman
A CONVICTED child-abuser who molested 15 children, including a one-year-old will soon be freed from prison after transitioning into a woman. Josie Smith, 23, was jailed in 2015 and officials recomm…
And believe insane stuff
It depends though on how much insanity is embraced still
And have helped to sabotage the Democratic party, costing them all three branches of government in 2016 to 2018 and only managed to claw back half of one branch in 2018 to 2020 after throwing every sort of heinous allegation at the target of their hate for four to five years now.
That is not a winning strategy Carl. It is in fact, the worst possible strategy you could have. And in 2020, it's looking to be that the same party that champions SJWs is going to lose the Executive again to the person they claim is the very incarnation of evil, is from what I understand unlikely to take the Senate, and with the horrible miscalculation in forcing the rest of their party to pursue impeachment, will probably lose the House. We're talking losing all three branches of government again in their entirety to their political foes. Worse is the Judicial Branch, which Trump is making immense gains on--and not just SCOTUS. Losing the Executive and the Senate in 2020 will very likely lead to a very large, long-lasting shift towards conservatism on the bench.
And this is before the majority or even the entirety of the Millennials become more conservative adults and create a political lock for the next decade or so.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
I wonder how that will work
Lots of ANTIFA types getting really fucking embarassed or caught in prison and their parents forcing them to shut up and/or study in a STEM Course or Trade School?
What about all those kids with college student loan debts? I think they’d vote for whoever can magically make their debt go away by paying it off
Terthna
Professional Lurker
...That seems like a very subjective standard.
Fleiur
Well-known member
Of course it's subjective, they are my standards. From the looks of it, they are correct.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Expect I'm okay with abortion (when it's not used as simply just another form of birth control), pre marital sex (as long there's a relationship there, and it isn't just about the sex; as I don't place much importance in marriage, outside of legal ramifications), and polygamous relationships (as long as everyone involved is committed to having a relationship with all parties, and it isn't just used as a excuse to have sex with multiple partners).
In short, you're saying that I'm not worth listening to, that I'm "one of them". I find that insulting.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
In general, my attitude on these issues is there a massive difference between what is morally and spiritually right and what can and should be legally enforced.
I for example believe homosexuality is immoral and a sin against God and nature. I also think that any attempt to ban it again, is impractical for both logistical and political reasons(if these could be surmounted however, there would be a different discussion).
Just because the law says “this is okay” does not mean that it should be confused with what is spiritually or morally proper.
The problem we have is that the law and morality are dialectically related but not the same.
Morals influence the law and the law shapes what society deems to be moral and otherwise. But they can not be merged into one unified standard. At least not with the difficulties in managing a post modern extremely diverse society.
Ideally in a world without sin-there would be no law because people would live lives of virtue and sinless righteousness. The law in such a world would serve no function either in terms of having law codes or the state to enforce and construct said codes.
But we don’t live in that world, thus we must try to find a way to enforce the law while also retaining morality separate from the law, yet not dependent on its edict or writ. Nor should the law to be respected be dependent on certain moral norms and virtues being supreme.
Pre marital sex/hook ups to bring the discussion back from that above bit of philosophizing-are simply impossible to ban. They can be condemned, or celebrated(if your a libertine that is), but it is simply impractical and politically infeasible to restrain or restrict such behavior.
Even if we may condemn it.
Something like the sexual abuse of children however-is more than just adults doing things we consider immoral, but is actively harming another person and an innocent at that. That should of course bring legal punishment and consequences.
I for example believe homosexuality is immoral and a sin against God and nature. I also think that any attempt to ban it again, is impractical for both logistical and political reasons(if these could be surmounted however, there would be a different discussion).
Just because the law says “this is okay” does not mean that it should be confused with what is spiritually or morally proper.
The problem we have is that the law and morality are dialectically related but not the same.
Morals influence the law and the law shapes what society deems to be moral and otherwise. But they can not be merged into one unified standard. At least not with the difficulties in managing a post modern extremely diverse society.
Ideally in a world without sin-there would be no law because people would live lives of virtue and sinless righteousness. The law in such a world would serve no function either in terms of having law codes or the state to enforce and construct said codes.
But we don’t live in that world, thus we must try to find a way to enforce the law while also retaining morality separate from the law, yet not dependent on its edict or writ. Nor should the law to be respected be dependent on certain moral norms and virtues being supreme.
Pre marital sex/hook ups to bring the discussion back from that above bit of philosophizing-are simply impossible to ban. They can be condemned, or celebrated(if your a libertine that is), but it is simply impractical and politically infeasible to restrain or restrict such behavior.
Even if we may condemn it.
Something like the sexual abuse of children however-is more than just adults doing things we consider immoral, but is actively harming another person and an innocent at that. That should of course bring legal punishment and consequences.
Fleiur
Well-known member
It's good that you have your own standards yourself about these things.
What I am saying was, for instance, in a rally about pro abortion/Pro-choice, I will not attend and listen to those kinds of rallies or gatherings because it opposes my beliefs and I'm against it.
I will not read articles that praise hook ups and polygamous relationships because no one can convince me that it's a good thing and it will do me good in the long run. And because I will not subject myself in those ways.
However, if you're my co-worker, or friend of a friend, or my neighbour or in this forum, I will listen to what you say.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Meanwhile I believe it isn't immoral or a sin; at all. Which is at the core of why that sort of thing is it so impractical to legislate; because we often cannot agree on what is moral and immoral.
Understandable, but I think it's important to not give in to prejudice; you might learn something, or meet someone who isn't as bad as you originally assumed. If nothing else, it'll inspire you to actually think about the things you believe; which is important if you don't want to become just another NPC.
Fleiur
Well-known member
I'm listening to you, aren't I?
Terthna
Professional Lurker
You are, and I appreciate that. I'm just sharing my opinion on what you've been saying.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
That was the point of my aside about a "diverse postmodern society". No one set of moral values or norms reigns supreme and thus can not inform law as it once did.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Intersectionalism. You’ll be walking on eggshells and finding new ones pop up or suddenly be placed there.
No real rhytm for those constantly afraid of being exposed or told they’de soing “hate speech”
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Intersectional liberalism is basically an attempt to replace Christianity with a vaguish morality based on social justice.
Its a failed and faulty morality that can only end in disaster for any society or section thereof that adopts it.
There's no logic or rhyme to it, just a vague sense that there are oppressors and the oppressed, and uh historical grievances to rectify-usually by guilt tripping and monetary extortion.
Its a failed and faulty morality that can only end in disaster for any society or section thereof that adopts it.
There's no logic or rhyme to it, just a vague sense that there are oppressors and the oppressed, and uh historical grievances to rectify-usually by guilt tripping and monetary extortion.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Don’t forget breaking beauty standards and remaking them
The oppressed ironically want to look like their oppressors because their oppressors liked how the oppressed looked like
And also somehow embracing the oppressed look but being real bitchy and not getting that just wearing it diesn’t make em look good when their physiques are horrible to begin with
Then completely submitting to a different oppressor whom they say is oppressed and choosing to wear what said oppressor tells them to and somehow going on about how feminist this irrationally sexist and throwback to severe traditionalism of some desert people is
Last edited: