Feminism

Users who are viewing this thread

Gestricius said:
Headmaster said:
Yeah, funny how she's also right.
Again, that's all feminists want us men for.
I'm trying to spread gender equality, (Real gender equality) but Jhessail just complains and insults me, that ladies and gentlemen. Is not how you hold a proper argument.
No they don't, you ridiculous child, and no you don't. You're trying to spread the weird idea that the name of the movement is more important than the message. While simultaneously pretending "all feminists" are of one mind about all "us men" which is Gnarls Barkley levels of craaaazyyyhyyyy.
JeanChristophe said:
Jhessail should get back on her meds, armchair general nr 1 lol
And you should swallow your face.



Raising both genders neutral would create a new synthesis, it would not make males the oppressed and females the oppressors if both genders were 'neutral' whatever the **** that means. The WHOLE POINT of the gender neutrality idea is to support equality, but you just go "no it would make it more inequal" without ever even attempting to explain why; you completely miss what it's about.

And when that is pointed out to you you just go on the diversion that 'feminism' is the wrong name. Which is completely irrelevant to any part of the message of feminism.
 
Jhessail said:
Okay, I found some more booze and this from the end of page 194 onwards.

Gestricius said:
Flamboyant behaviour on all males is unneccessary according to me.
Again, dull-witted toaster-****er, what is flamboyant behaviour and who elected you to be an authority in it?
Flamboyant behaviour is described as "colorful"
It's my opinion. Not some authority.
And if you're still wondering what it's like being flamboyant, you can imagine a man going : Oh come on Jhessail stop being such a grouchy goose! Jhessail! Oh my goooood! Buildings can also be flamboyant but that's a different manner.
 
Moose! said:
Headmaster said:
There are 2 biological sexes

Jane, you ignorant slut.  :razz:
I don't get the reference :sad:

Gestricius said:
Jhessail said:
Okay, I found some more booze and this from the end of page 194 onwards.

Gestricius said:
Flamboyant behaviour on all males is unneccessary according to me.
Again, dull-witted toaster-****er, what is flamboyant behaviour and who elected you to be an authority in it?
Flamboyant behaviour is described as "colorful" and "feminime"
It's my opinion. Not some authority.
And if you're still wondering what it's like being flamboyant, you can imagine a man going : Oh come on Jhessail stop being such a grouchy goose! Jhessail! Oh my goooood! Buildings can also be flamboyant but that's a different manner.
Your opinion is authoristic. You don't like flamboyant behavior? Don't act flamboyant. Anything past that makes you a wannabe Gaddafi.
 
Headmaster said:
Moose! said:
Headmaster said:
There are 2 biological sexes

Jane, you ignorant slut.  :razz:
I don't get the reference :sad:

Eh, it's a 40 year old skit so I don't blame you.  :razz:



There are so many biological sexes besides XX and XY (X, XXX, XXY, XXYY, XXXY, and XYY) in humans that the prospect of becoming a parent is ever so slightly terrifying to me.  :shock:
 
Oh. Really, I don't remember much of my biology classes, it was the worst teacher I had. Thanks for remembering of the possibilities of intersexuality, but I guess that's a bit too complex for Ges anyways. (according to what I searched now, usually 1 in 2,000 babies are. It's a rather high probability, but be a parent anyways, don't drop your wants).
 
Depends. Klinefelter and the like can be very damaging but there are a select few that does nothing besides some physical differences/ambiguity. However, a common trend is that a good chunk of intersex types automatically renders you sterile. Calling them a genetic defect though is a slippery slope for any persons familiar with biology. Speaking from personal experience and other molecular geneticist who had self tested at one point of time, a good 3/4 of us have genetic makeups that according to the textbooks would had at least had some horrible effect on our physiology or health, but we all end up being 'normal'.

One of my lecturers, based on his genetic code should had been automatically miscarried before he was born. We don't understand everything yet.
 
Danik said:
Moose, that's genetic disorders, not unique biological sexes.

What the **** do you think biological sex is determined by? The presence of certain sex chromosome. The presence of extra or missing chromosomes can lead to a number of medical disorders (some which are more or less severe than others), but that doesn't mean that these aren't distinct sexes from a biological standpoint (although they are usually grouped together and termed intersex).
 
Jhessail said:
ColonicAcid said:
They're allowed to nurture their children in any way they want. But if they complain about their child being bullied for being different then it's nobodies fault but their own.
Stop the press! ColonicAcid has just admitted and confirmed that bullying is the fault of the victim, for being so "bullyable". Very soon he will confirm that rape is the fault of the victim, for wearing skimpy clothing, and assault the fault of the victim for not being buff enough.

I agree with almost everything you said, but this is wrong. There's a pretty big divide between forcing your male child to wear a dress and dressing skimpy causing rape, which isn't even relevant to the debate. Parents should take responsibility for their actions. Forcing your male child to wear dresses will cause bullying. If, for instance, I announce publicly to the world that I'm into bronyism, I'm 99% sure I'll be bullied. If you take an action that isn't favored by the majority, you will incur discrimination.
 
Headmaster said:
Oh. Really, I don't remember much of my biology classes, it was the worst teacher I had. Thanks for remembering of the possibilities of intersexuality, but I guess that's a bit too complex for Ges anyways. (according to what I searched now, usually 1 in 2,000 babies are. It's a rather high probability, but be a parent anyways, don't drop your wants).
Typical feminazi move. "He doesn't agree with my opinion?! *Insert insult here*
 
Yeah, single out the only insult I threw, in a reply that wasn't even direct. Ignore completely these posts directed at you:
Headmaster said:
That's totally not what gender neutral means. As I said, and I'll repeat myself, the child chooses what he wants. You're seeing the "boys being raised girls and vice versa" because that's the new part. If a child, born sexually a boy, raised as gender neutral picks "boy clothes", you won't see it in the news or Youtube.

About wages, just no. Roles don't get "swapped" like that. They grow and become norm. In a possibility driven society, with gender neutrality, statistically you'd get such a range of gender identities that people wouldn't even bother with it (which is perfect), and wages, prejudice and all would have no real place. Also, there aren't only 2 genders. Repeating myself again, genders are social constructs. There are 2 biological sexes, those don't define gender.
Headmaster said:
Your opinion is authoristic. You don't like flamboyant behavior? Don't act flamboyant. Anything past that makes you a wannabe Gaddafi.

Typical bailing out because I'm out of excuses move.
 
Gestricius, you're not insulted here because we're all part of a feminist conspiracy here, but because you talk uneducated, inexperienced baseless bull**** in the topic, and won't stop even after all your previous bull**** was repeatedly pointed out.

2 new posts

You don't do arguments, dude. You say dumb stuff, then whine like a girlie girl after your dumb stuff is shot down.
 
DoctorPainkiller said:
Jhessail said:
ColonicAcid said:
They're allowed to nurture their children in any way they want. But if they complain about their child being bullied for being different then it's nobodies fault but their own.
Stop the press! ColonicAcid has just admitted and confirmed that bullying is the fault of the victim, for being so "bullyable". Very soon he will confirm that rape is the fault of the victim, for wearing skimpy clothing, and assault the fault of the victim for not being buff enough.

I agree with almost everything you said, but this is wrong. There's a pretty big divide between forcing your male child to wear a dress and dressing skimpy causing rape, which isn't even relevant to the debate. Parents should take responsibility for their actions. Forcing your male child to wear dresses will cause bullying. If, for instance, I announce publicly to the world that I'm into bronyism, I'm 99% sure I'll be bullied. If you take an action that isn't favored by the majority, you will incur discrimination.
Most of us are already in our 20s. Last I checked, children from every generation think different and last I checked with the health promo folks, bullying based on difference is so minor that it's no longer a thing anymore. If like they found out, bullying is more power play than social oppression, it doesn't make sense as a show of power to bully the kid no one else can relate to, because then no one would have a healthy amount of fear or respect for you because you're just picking out the easiest targets. But that might be partly due to the Australian brand of education that very much strictly puts a no no to anything remotely resembling racial discrimination. I say they have the right approach to it. If you can't curb said racial discriminatory tendencies in the older generation, make damn sure the younger ones get a firm reduction in said tendencies. Then give it a few generations to work its magic.

There's apparently a huge difference between a comic bully and how bullies actually work and even in my own experience, the different kid is more likely to be alienated than actually singled out for bullying. Kids do have witch hunts, but to have a witch hunt, a witch-like incident must first occur. Without said incident, you just stay away from the creepy old lady who does her own thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom