Feminist Kiwis (not a honeypot)

Destacado
I never used to think about sexism much until I started reading online comments, where I could be reading a completely unrelated article, and there would always be at least one man whinging on about his hatred of women or feminists.
What do all these newspaper articles mean when they talk about feminists in a nasty way? I thought they were the people who fought against abuse of women, such as women being able to vote, or not be slaves so they're paid the same as a man. Isn't that just normal? Why does normal need a label? Most of these articles are about something Americans have said. I think Americans tend to be more annoying with getting their point out, so maybe they should just be called annoying Americans instead of feminists?
If I ever replied to awful comments about women in what I thought was an equal way, such as how one world leader said women can't be leaders because they have periods, I said that testosterone causes men to be aggressive, and when men are in their peak testosterone of late teens and early 20s, they cause more dangerous accidents than others, I was called a feminist. That means many think it's normal for women to be insulted, but if a woman does the same to a man, then they're part of an unusual organisation.
I saw there were videos on youtube as tributes to serial killers, and the comments were saying things such as how the women deserved it because they were this or that, as if they think they can decide on if she lives or not.
I never realised so many men had the abusive partner or serial killer mentality.

I noticed there are a lot of men from countries where women are abused for going out alone such as some backward Indian villages, who use any internet forum to whinge on against feminism, but also quite a few men from the USA too. I don't think they're against feminism because they want a traditional role where men look after women, because women shouldn't have rights to vote or equal pay etc. I think they're angry because they want more rights to be abusive towards women.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
PPowell4 dijo:
I never used to think about sexism much until I started reading online comments, where I could be reading a completely unrelated article, and there would always be at least one man whinging on about his hatred of women or feminists.
What do all these newspaper articles mean when they talk about feminists in a nasty way? I thought they were the people who fought against abuse of women, such as women being able to vote, or not be slaves so they're paid the same as a man. Isn't that just normal? Why does normal need a label? Most of these articles are about something Americans have said. I think Americans tend to be more annoying with getting their point out, so maybe they should just be called annoying Americans instead of feminists?
If I ever replied to awful comments about women in what I thought was an equal way, such as how one world leader said women can't be leaders because they have periods, I said that testosterone causes men to be aggressive, and when men are in their peak testosterone of late teens and early 20s, they cause more dangerous accidents than others, I was called a feminist. That means many think it's normal for women to be insulted, but if a woman does the same to a man, then they're part of an unusual organisation.
I saw there were videos on youtube as tributes to serial killers, and the comments were saying things such as how the women deserved it because they were this or that, as if they think they can decide on if she lives or not.
I never realised so many men had the abusive partner or serial killer mentality.

I noticed there are a lot of men from countries where women are abused for going out alone such as some backward Indian villages, who use any internet forum to whinge on against feminism, but also quite a few men from the USA too. I don't think they're against feminism because they want a traditional role where men look after women, because women shouldn't have rights to vote or equal pay etc. I think they're angry because they want more rights to be abusive towards women.
Presiona para expandir...
Yeah these whiny faggots are everywhere. I saw one go off on an anti-woman rant on an article about motherfucking beanie babies. How do you even get to that point, where you're on a blog about beanie babies and it triggers you that hard?
I know a lot of women who have been seriously abused by different men, they don't spew so much vitriol toward men as these guys do toward women. With men it's usually over some pathetic nonsense like their female friends dating someone else and not them, or not getting laid enough, or getting divorced for being a shitty husband but they dindu nuffin wrong. Notice, none of these men ever take responsibility for their failed relationships. If they do, it's usually twisted around to fault women somehow e.g. "I tried to be a caring husband, but women prefer bad boys"
Lots of men are both extremely entitled and mentally unbalanced. This is how you get shit like in the middle east with men literally burning women or throwing acid at them for rejecting them, except that's not acceptable in first world countries so we get a bunch of impotent keyboard warriors shitting up the internet instead. It's best to just ignore them.
 
Actual feminism? Yes, I'm all for that. Tumblr feminism? I don't think even tumblr feminists know what the fuck that shit is, but people can think what they want.

Women have problems and disadvantages in society that men don't have (in some cases not on the same scale, at any rate). Having a robust conversation about what those problems and disadvantages are is a good thing, and I don't understand why people get so pissy at the idea that women are human beings. I feel like most of the people who hate on feminism don't actually know what it is.

Also quoting Judith Butler to hipster chicks is a good way to get laid
 
feedtheoctopus dijo:
Actual feminism? Yes, I'm all for that. Tumblr feminism? I don't think even tumblr feminists know what the fuck that shit is, but people can think what they want.
Presiona para expandir...

Thing is, Tumblr/Twitter feminism has been so thoroughly highjacked by narcissists that it barely resembles feminism anymore.

There’s a strange irony in the current state of online social justice politics. The most vocal and popular in the group often also possess vicious personalities, alternating between idolized martyrdom and provocative vituperation. Ironically, people like this actually harm the cause of social equality with their abusive rhetoric by alienating others. The reasoning behind such people rising to prominence in these groups is not accidental, nor a coincidence. The deck is stacked in a way that favors narcissistic abusers to thrive.

People with self-hatred tend to inadvertently create a narcissistic world around themselves. They use their self-flagellation as a way to gain approval of others. This produces narcissism as compensation for their suffering, which focuses their attention on themselves, while the world goes on with the same level of injustice. It erodes their ability to empathize with others, because they must continue to feed their narcissism, and blinds them to reality. In this way, SJWs hoist themselves with their own petard. They focus intently on their own suffering while ignoring the suffering of others; the exact sin that they love to accuse others of doing.

In a group dynamic, each of them becomes simultaneously a codependent enabler and an instigator. The delusional self-hatred is reinforced by the group consensus, and over time, it even becomes a competition. Each attempts to one-up the others with greater tales of narcissistic social justice, and each focuses only on speech and actions that offer a greater social reward within the group, specifically outrage or jokes. This is easily quantifiable in the form of upvotes, reblogs, and retweets. The group therefore becomes a ready source of narcissistic supply, as well as peer pressure to remain in this state. The winners of this competition are the ones who are the most willing to feed this supply; those who are the most willing exaggerate their own importance and even inflict harm on others, all with the approval of their own psyche. The empathy that would allow them to succeed at their professed cause instead becomes a liability within the group.

To the narcissist, social media is the ultimate playground. While no causal link between social media and narcissistic personality has been proven, there is evidence for correlation between the two, especially on Twitter among millennials. Social media offers the ability to create many superficial friendships while presenting a carefully curated and overly grandiose persona, an ideal situation for a narcissist. Online interactions offer freedom from both physical and social inhibitions, allowing delusions of grandeur, narcissism, viciousness, impulsivity, and infantile behavior to rise to the surface. In turn, as Elias Aboujaoude suggests in his book Virtual You, "the traits we take on online can become incorporated in our offline personalities." Since the most extreme behaviors attract the highest social reward online, there is incentive to continue them, and incorporate these attitudes into the offline self. This creates not only hubris, but an inability to communicate effectively outside of the online social circle, as the narcissist has become too addicted to their online supply.

The natural consequence of identity politics is to mortgage long-term political gains for short-term boosts of self-esteem. On social media, this has never been easier, nor more destructive, as the inevitable winners of such games are the ones who are most willing to use the group for their own selfish ends. As Freddie deBoer writes, “In this disregard for actual political success, they reveal their own privilege, as it’s only the privileged who could ever have so little regard for actual, material progress. As long as they are allowed to co-opt the movement for social justice for their own personal aggrandizement, the world will not improve, not for women, people of color, gay and transgender people, or the poor.”
 
Wallace dijo:
Thing is, Tumblr/Twitter feminism has been so thoroughly highjacked by narcissists that it barely resembles feminism anymore.

There’s a strange irony in the current state of online social justice politics. The most vocal and popular in the group often also possess vicious personalities, alternating between idolized martyrdom and provocative vituperation. Ironically, people like this actually harm the cause of social equality with their abusive rhetoric by alienating others. The reasoning behind such people rising to prominence in these groups is not accidental, nor a coincidence. The deck is stacked in a way that favors narcissistic abusers to thrive.

People with self-hatred tend to inadvertently create a narcissistic world around themselves. They use their self-flagellation as a way to gain approval of others. This produces narcissism as compensation for their suffering, which focuses their attention on themselves, while the world goes on with the same level of injustice. It erodes their ability to empathize with others, because they must continue to feed their narcissism, and blinds them to reality. In this way, SJWs hoist themselves with their own petard. They focus intently on their own suffering while ignoring the suffering of others; the exact sin that they love to accuse others of doing.

In a group dynamic, each of them becomes simultaneously a codependent enabler and an instigator. The delusional self-hatred is reinforced by the group consensus, and over time, it even becomes a competition. Each attempts to one-up the others with greater tales of narcissistic social justice, and each focuses only on speech and actions that offer a greater social reward within the group, specifically outrage or jokes. This is easily quantifiable in the form of upvotes, reblogs, and retweets. The group therefore becomes a ready source of narcissistic supply, as well as peer pressure to remain in this state. The winners of this competition are the ones who are the most willing to feed this supply; those who are the most willing exaggerate their own importance and even inflict harm on others, all with the approval of their own psyche. The empathy that would allow them to succeed at their professed cause instead becomes a liability within the group.

To the narcissist, social media is the ultimate playground. While no causal link between social media and narcissistic personality has been proven, there is evidence for correlation between the two, especially on Twitter among millennials. Social media offers the ability to create many superficial friendships while presenting a carefully curated and overly grandiose persona, an ideal situation for a narcissist. Online interactions offer freedom from both physical and social inhibitions, allowing delusions of grandeur, narcissism, viciousness, impulsivity, and infantile behavior to rise to the surface. In turn, as Elias Aboujaoude suggests in his book Virtual You, "the traits we take on online can become incorporated in our offline personalities." Since the most extreme behaviors attract the highest social reward online, there is incentive to continue them, and incorporate these attitudes into the offline self. This creates not only hubris, but an inability to communicate effectively outside of the online social circle, as the narcissist has become too addicted to their online supply.

The natural consequence of identity politics is to mortgage long-term political gains for short-term boosts of self-esteem. On social media, this has never been easier, nor more destructive, as the inevitable winners of such games are the ones who are most willing to use the group for their own selfish ends. As Freddie deBoer writes, “In this disregard for actual political success, they reveal their own privilege, as it’s only the privileged who could ever have so little regard for actual, material progress. As long as they are allowed to co-opt the movement for social justice for their own personal aggrandizement, the world will not improve, not for women, people of color, gay and transgender people, or the poor.”
Presiona para expandir...

If you've ever read No Logo by Naomi Klein she has a great bit in it where she talks about the first wave of what's often termed "political correctness" in the 80's and early 90's. Their whole political analysis was based on the assumption that our problems and divisions come down to cultural constructs, and that if we just point out flaws in mainstream culture loudly and long enough sooner or later that culture will change and we'll have a more just society. Thing is it was all appearance, all representation. In the process of giving into pure identity politics with no broader analysis they ended up just creating a marketing opportunity.

This is about when various corporations started trying to present themselves as socially liberal and forward thinking. They found a way to brand identity, to associate themselves with inclusivity and tolerance. Meanwhile they were selling products made by exploited women of color in overseas sweatshops. More than that whatever radical potential exists in identity politics was eradicated by the fact that it had now become an aimless fashion statement to a lot of people. She brings up Courtney Love and accusations that she "sold out" later in her career. Courtney Love never actually "sold out" because she was never "pure" to begin with, she was just a punk chick who did heroin, she didn't have any broader beliefs or anything like that. And if she did they weren't significant enough to her life to stick with.

I can't really say I "hate" identity politics, but there's no point in complaining about racism or sexism without understanding how it springs from a broader power structure in society, which is something these idiots never do. And if they do actually question how our society works on a political/economic level they drag it down to the level of platitudes or fall back on shallow reformism.

At the end of the day they're all just jerking themselves off.

I might add the far-right isn't immune to this kind of narcissistic identitarian crap either.

Just watch this
 
feedtheoctopus dijo:
If you've ever read No Logo by Naomi Klein she has a great bit in it where she talks about the first wave of what's often termed "political correctness" in the 80's and early 90's. Their whole political analysis was based on the assumption that our problems and divisions come down to cultural constructs, and that if we just point out flaws in mainstream culture loudly and long enough sooner or later that culture will change and we'll have a more just society. Thing is it was all appearance, all representation. In the process of giving into pure identity politics with no broader analysis they ended up just creating a marketing opportunity.

This is about when various corporations started trying to present themselves as socially liberal and forward thinking. They found a way to brand identity, to associate themselves with inclusivity and tolerance. Meanwhile they were selling products made by exploited women of color in overseas sweatshops. More than that whatever radical potential exists in identity politics was eradicated by the fact that it had now become an aimless fashion statement to a lot of people. She brings up Courtney Love and accusations that she "sold out" later in her career. Courtney Love never actually "sold out" because she was never "pure" to begin with, she was just a punk chick who did heroin, she didn't have any broader beliefs or anything like that. And if she did they weren't significant enough to her life to stick with.
Presiona para expandir...

Indeed, and I think the structural problems in society will go on unabated because of this. Big companies like Sony will get invested in SocJus rhetoric because it’s hip and trendy, but as soon as they realize it doesn’t make them money, they’ll drop it like a hot potato. Paul Feig’s career trajectory will be very telling. Hollywood has very little tolerance for people who lose money.

Likewise, big companies will only give into demands just enough to deflect criticism. They will promote only a token few women and minorities to hold up and say that the system works. That’s the problem with the 1%, there’s only enough room for 1% of the population in it.
 
I don't mind the concept of the movement but good lord some of the people in it are so arrogant (or idiotic) about it, I wonder if they have some parental issues they need to work out. Aside from that, one thing I'm sort of concerned about is doctors who don't take women being in pain seriously. I'm not sure what can be done about it, as not everyone is going to listen despite best efforts.

:powerlevel: Some people are so flabbergasted by people saying they're not feminist, you could say that you were stalked or sexually harassed and the topic somehow was involved in the incident, and they'll just latch onto the "I don't get why you're not a feminist" part and shit like that doesn't really help my feelings about the people who call themselves feminists.
 
Última edición:
I do not identify myself as a feminist, and would be a little upset if someone called me one just because of the shit tumblrettes have done to the name, but I support actual feminists with actual knowledge about how the actual world works and not only deign to allow others to have a different opinion, but ENCOURAGE that. Like Christine Hoff, for example.
 
lol Modern feminism is stupid, it's proven that women actually depend on men for emotional and logical support, without them they'll act on impulse all the time and think that empowerment means getting people in trouble in the name of your inferiority. Sorry, it's sad but true.
 
Hom Tanks dijo:
lol Modern feminism is stupid, it's proven that women actually depend on men for emotional and logical support, without them they'll act on impulse all the time and think that empowerment means getting people in trouble in the name of your inferiority. Sorry, it's sad but true.
Presiona para expandir...
The Loveshy Therapy Center is the other way. It's closed too.
 
Anyone of you familiar with this channel?


While I've only skimmed through a handful of his videos for a couplr minutes, it seems like this guy is a feminist YouTuber who actually does his research, although he did refer to Everyday Feminism as a great site, which is a bit iffy.

Any thoughts?
 
melty dijo:
Yeah these whiny faggots are everywhere. I saw one go off on an anti-woman rant on an article about motherfucking beanie babies. How do you even get to that point, where you're on a blog about beanie babies and it triggers you that hard?
I know a lot of women who have been seriously abused by different men, they don't spew so much vitriol toward men as these guys do toward women. With men it's usually over some pathetic nonsense like their female friends dating someone else and not them, or not getting laid enough, or getting divorced for being a shitty husband but they dindu nuffin wrong. Notice, none of these men ever take responsibility for their failed relationships. If they do, it's usually twisted around to fault women somehow e.g. "I tried to be a caring husband, but women prefer bad boys"
Lots of men are both extremely entitled and mentally unbalanced. This is how you get shit like in the middle east with men literally burning women or throwing acid at them for rejecting them, except that's not acceptable in first world countries so we get a bunch of impotent keyboard warriors shitting up the internet instead. It's best to just ignore them.
Presiona para expandir...

This shit happens because men are the disposable gender. I genuinely hope there can be a time where there is a cap on how many men are born. Not because they would be less disposable, but just because there would be fewer of them. Women are better and stronger, genetically and otherwise. The only men that should be allowed to live should either serve, or be what women want, tall, well hung, good looking and masculine.
 
DuckSucker dijo:
This shit happens because men are the disposable gender. I genuinely hope there can be a time where there is a cap on how many men are born. Not because they would be less disposable, but just because there would be fewer of them. Women are better and stronger, genetically and otherwise. The only men that should be allowed to live should either serve, or be what women want, tall, well hung, good looking and masculine.
Presiona para expandir...

Please, expound upon these views and opinions of yours.

This is a good idea for you to do, certainly.
 
"Not a Honeypot"

olivia-3.gif
 
I'm a feminist in the sense that I disagree with sexism and I value women as equal to men.

edit: to expand a little, I feel a total disconnect from popular feminism. I think Slut-Walks are retarded. I think North American feminism totally lacks class consciousness and I think that's a shame.
 
Última edición:
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo