-
Posts
-
P*ss off and create one then, instead of trying to dominate this one alongside your sidekick Sceptical.
I was introduced to feminism 45 years ago. A very young guy.
I was really confused by the arguments, they were all so new, but it was very clear that women were given a raw deal. They weren’t saints but they were given a raw deal.
I’m not a feminist. Eventually you get a more balanced approach. Drac is right, men a well as women suffer.
But one thing I found – the male feminist is one of the most hypocrticial characters you’re likely to meet.
Dr Johnson once said that someone who waves a Union Jack all the time is a scoundrel, and my (sometimes bitter) experience is that if you want to look for a real misogynist who puts women down, then look at the man who’s always shouting about the oppression of women
Sorry, SHR, the facts are what they are. The nutjob was a Nazi who who was jailed for murder. Jo Cox’s death has frightened a lot of people in the public realm. That is a fact. The online trolls who threaten to rape and murder are the equivalent of stalkers. er Gin is not an MP. Sorry to correct you. A bravfe woman, though. Oh yes. And a very important one. She’ll figure in constitutional history when we are all long dead.
Thomas Mair seems to have much in common with Ted Kaczynski, who seem to be a target of a want to feel anger and to be proven right by extreme survivalists Thinking types who are legally confused and never really know people. They think they know best for other people and try to break them “to make them” because it’s fun. Yet farming is definitely more fun. He probably did have an existing mental illness made worse by keeping blind windows and not telling him something. It’s also likely that he was an unfortunate target of curiosity, instigative animosity and experiments through a Nazi-like conspiracy. It probably doesn’t help that he didn’t find support that would actively discourage this instead of sympathizing, and that he didn’t know another country was involved where people are so bored they care about few foreigners loving or hating them and they probably couldn’t stand focusing on themselves, so they try to focus on those opposite of them. They probably are morally weak so instead of doing the right thing, they try to find social shortcuts that doesn’t help them and creates a different set of moral holes they always regret and makes them
I wish I was working in psy ops
I’m not a feminist. Eventually you get a more balanced approach. Drac is right, men a well as women suffer.
I’m sure that some people will say ‘But men are violent than women’. Let’s assume this is true for the purposes of this post. If there are no shelters for men because women are not violent, what happens when there is abuse in a gay relationship. Are those men to be ignored?
This is also an argument against gender segregated shelters. The logic is that the victim will be distressed by being around people of the same gender as the attacker, which sounds silly to me. But where do homosexual victims go if they are distressed by the same gender, but are banned from shelters of the oposite gender.
And what about transgender victims, which shelter should they go to?
I thought modern femmism was about equality and intersectionality, why are you discriminating against gays and transgender people?
I’m not a feminist. Eventually you get a more balanced approach. Drac is right, men a well as women suffer.
You do do make me smile Sceptical, you appear to assume everyone else views the world through your own eyes. That your assumptions override all other views and that you are somehow on a higher intellectual plateau than everyone else.
You made this thread, no one else, it was your choice. You introduced this woman as a martyr who has been subjected to threats of violence and you linked it to online misogyny and the issues female MPs encounter online. Then as usual, you attempt to wriggle out of the responses it provoked (and was designed to provoke) like a worm on a hook, name dropping whoever happens to agree with you, as if it somehow verifies your own views.
But one thing I found – the male feminist is one of the most hypocrticial characters you’re likely to meet.
I absolutely agree and next time you might think more carefully before you make a thread based on gender and violence. Otherwise people will assume you are a total hypocrite.
My advice would be, try not to personalize so much how you feel about these issues and remain objective. I am sure these threads would be a far happier and healthier place, if you at least attempt this new approach. Your threads always become confrontational because of your choice of language and when this is pointed out to you, you bury your head in the sand and chant la la la.
I’m not a feminist. Eventually you get a more balanced approach. Drac is right, men a well as women suffer.
I’m sure that some people will say ‘But men are violent than women’. Let’s assume this is true for the purposes of this post. If there are no shelters for men because women are not violent, what happens when there is abuse in a gay relationship. Are those men to be ignored? This is also an argument against gender segregated shelters. The logic is that the victim will be distressed by being around people of the same gender as the attacker, which sounds silly to me. But where do homosexual victims go if they are distressed by the same gender, but are banned from shelters of the oposite gender. And what about transgender victims, which shelter should they go to? I thought modern femmism was about equality and intersectionality, why are you discriminating against gays and transgender people?
Cue another long winded debate about this issue between you and Sceptical. Just cut out the middleman and just go to the Daily Mail site, because nothing will be typed about this issue on this site that differs that site.
Cue another long winded debate about this issue between you and Sceptical. Just cut out the middleman and just go to the Daily Mail site, because nothing will be typed about this issue on this site that differs that site.
The Daily Mail has a whole section specifically for female identify politics, maybe you should be the one reading it. I am opposed it it, lol.
Cue another long winded debate about this issue between you and Sceptical. Just cut out the middleman and just go to the Daily Mail site, because nothing will be typed about this issue on this site that differs that site.
The Daily Mail has a whole section specifically for female identify politics, maybe you should be the one reading it. I am opposed it it, lol.
Absolutely it does I totally agree and which is why I am surprised both you and Sceptical don’t engage with others on that site, rather than just preening each other on this site, when it comes to concepts and theories that are above the rest of us mere mortals.
concepts and theories that are above the rest of us mere mortals.
speak for yourself.
My advice would be, try not to personalize so much how you feel about these issues and remain objective. I am sure these threads would be a far happier and healthier place, if you at least attempt this new approach.
But SHR, my fave narcissist, I am waiting for you to set an example. *holds breath
My advice would be, try not to personalize so much how you feel about these issues and remain objective. I am sure these threads would be a far happier and healthier place, if you at least attempt this new approach.
But SHR, my fave narcissist, I am waiting for you to set an example. *holds breath
Ouch. I thought I had cunningly disguised my “narcissistic” tendencies. Yes I do admit I have a bad habit of making attention seeking threads on this site, with the wider audience in mind, rather than the subject in hand. Which is why I choose to harness confrontational, provocative language to illicit a response. I unfortunately choose this approach so that I can then demonstrate my intellectual superiority over everyone else and then lecture people (on an over 40’s forum) how intellectually superior I am, compared to them.
I will take your positive feedback onboard, thank you. I will try not to praise posts I agree with in future and then pat the contributors on the head, as if they were written by five year old children and I will most certainly keep your constructive criticism in mind, bearing in mind though that my overt “narcissism” means I lack emotional intelligence and the ability to empathise with other people and their right, to express a view or an opinion.
Again many thanks for your online psychological appraisal Sceptical. It is much appreciated.
1 member liked this post.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!