# Slut shaming and female treachery; the cold war fought by women



## Aging Boner (Nov 19, 2013)

> One of these outfits worn in Dr. Tracy Vaillancourt's study on female aggression provoked a sort of "mean girl" form of indirect aggression. The other attracted little notice at all.  How aggressive is the human female? When the anthropologist Sarah B. Hrdy surveyed the research literature three decades ago, she concluded that ?the competitive component in the nature of women remains anecdotal, intuitively sensed, but not confirmed by science.?
> 
> Hidden cameras are finding their way into long-term care facilities; lizards, turtles and snakes are proving more intelligent than once thought; why it might be evolutionarily beneficial for women to be rude to one another.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Nov 19, 2013)

Oh we all knew this.  For as much as radfems would make it seem like the gender of man as a whole is out to get women, it's women themselves who are their own worst enemies.  I mean, just fucking look at high school.  Teenage girls are essentially sociopaths but without the whole serial killer aspect.


----------



## αce (Nov 19, 2013)

> but without the whole serial killer aspect.



You sure about that?


----------



## Mael (Nov 19, 2013)

αce said:


> You sure about that?



Hmmm...

On second thought, you're right.  Include the serial killer aspect but with less Ed Gein and more Mean Girls but with more hair pulling and suicide-inducing.


----------



## Jon Moxley (Nov 19, 2013)

Scientists proving what every common man knows 


Still, it's crazy how aggressive women get with each other.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 19, 2013)

but that's a man's fault somehow, Mael.


----------



## Mael (Nov 19, 2013)

Punk CM said:


> Scientists proving what every common man knows
> 
> 
> Still, it's crazy how aggressive women get with each other.



I remember when Family Guy had an episode of Stewie subjecting Brian to some virtual reality simulation to see how loyal Brian was to Peter to even take a bullet and he did this to Peter, Quagmire, and Joe at the same time.  Then he did the same with Lois, Meg, Bonnie, and some other woman and they were literally fighting each other with the remark that "it's been five minutes into it and they haven't even asked each other their names."



Yami Munesanzun said:


> but that's a man's fault somehow, Mael.



Always teh patrarcheh.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 19, 2013)

Yeah, the study is pretty obvious.  Its like studying whether men are more likely to fight at a sausage fest or a party filled with mostly women.  Anyone who's been to parties knows the answer.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 19, 2013)

You would think it was self-explanatory but considering the state of modern gender studies women seemly can do no wrong.


----------



## Revolution (Nov 19, 2013)

With OP's name, avatar, and post I can't help but get a r/redpill vibe from "Aging Boner"


----------



## navy (Nov 19, 2013)

The slut looks kinda hot. Or am I getting the wrong message here...


----------



## Zaru (Nov 19, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> You would think it was self-explanatory but considering the state of modern gender studies women seemly can do no wrong.



They'll just tell you that it's a social construct


----------



## corsair (Nov 19, 2013)

I found out about this when I was like 13. Yeah, I am kinda slow sometimes.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 19, 2013)

corsair said:


> I found out about this when I was like 13. Yeah, I am kinda slow sometimes.



Bro, a large percentage of NF hasn't figured it out yet, and they're 23.


----------



## Naiki (Nov 19, 2013)

Yeah, it's a competition between us women. We all want to dress the best, look the best, talk the best, and *be* the best. We're competitive like that.


----------



## Doge (Nov 19, 2013)

So does this mean Audi-Mercedes shaming is out now?  I want to drive my Mercedes Benz in the ghetto without fear of getting shot or robbed.

Don't tell me to lock my doors, tell the crime perpetrators to not attack me!


----------



## TheGreatOne (Nov 19, 2013)

I wonder if it stems from an inferiority complex that women have genetically 
But then again men have that too. Maybe women are more outward with their insecurities. I don't see any other valid reason for a woman to be upset because another woman is wearing something that is "provocative". But hey what do I know


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (Nov 19, 2013)

We all knew that .


----------



## Bishop (Nov 19, 2013)

Funny how much money is being spent to research shit we already know...I can bet what will be cut from the budget next


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 19, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> You would think it was self-explanatory but considering the state of modern gender studies women seemly can do no wrong.



Very true.

This is shit most of us knew. As the old saying goes,

"_Don't try to understand women. Women understand women and they hate each other_"


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 19, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Funny how much money is being spent to research shit we already know...I can bet what will be cut from the budget next



sometimes someone needs to prove something that's been observed since forever, so another person that's basically arguing against it will shut up.

or you know, something like that.


----------



## Gunners (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't really take issue with the women who criticised her in all honesty. People should know what is and isn't an appropriate way to dress; the comparison people always make is ''But men dress that way'', whilst overlooking the fact that it is also inappropriate in certain settings. 

If someone dresses in a sexually provocative manner, when attending something like class, they look like attention whores.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Nov 19, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> With OP's name, avatar, and post I can't help but get a r/redpill vibe from "Aging Boner"



Your being really paranoid.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Gunners said:


> I don't really take issue with the women who criticised her in all honesty. People should know what is and isn't an appropriate way to dress; the comparison people always make is ''But men dress that way'', whilst overlooking the fact that it is also inappropriate in certain settings.
> 
> If someone dresses in a sexually provocative manner, when attending something like class, they look like attention whores.



I'll never shame a woman who goes out of her way to look her best whenever possible. In fact, I think this behavior should be publicly promoted and rewarded.

Part of me wonders if the 'fat acceptance' movement, and the constant 'you go girl!' telling of ugly women how pretty they are are actually women being passive aggressive in an attempt to reduce competition for themselves. The equivalent of leading a blind man off a bridge with bad advice.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mael said:


> I remember when Family Guy had an episode of Stewie subjecting Brian to some virtual reality simulation to see how loyal Brian was to Peter to even take a bullet and he did this to Peter, Quagmire, and Joe at the same time.  Then he did the same with Lois, Meg, Bonnie, and some other woman and they were literally fighting each other with the remark that "it's been five minutes into it and they haven't even asked each other their names."
> 
> 
> 
> Always teh patrarcheh.



I think the episode is "Forget Me Not"
[YOUTUBE]mpIS63nJrRg[/YOUTUBE]

Its nice to have a study that goes against the narrative of the patriarchy though.


----------



## Gunners (Nov 19, 2013)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I'll never shame a woman who goes out of her way to look her best whenever possible. In fact, I think this behavior should be publicly promoted and rewarded.
> 
> Part of me wonders if the 'fat acceptance' movement, and the constant 'you go girl!' telling of ugly women how pretty they are are actually women being passive aggressive in an attempt to reduce competition for themselves. The equivalent of leading a blind man off a bridge with bad advice.



You can look your best without looking like some cheap groupie. Dressing like a cheap groupie is actually the opposite of someone looking their best, it just makes them look classless.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Nep Nep (Nov 19, 2013)

Gunners said:


> You can look your best without looking like some cheap groupie. Dressing like a cheap groupie is actually the opposite of someone looking their best, it just makes them look classless.



^ I really don't like those classless ladies. 

I don't think it's ever a good idea to date a woman who attends class in clothes that she'd go out to a party with her friends in..


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2013)

OK, not to completely disavow that women can be pretty damn vicious toward each other but this thread...


----------



## Savior (Nov 19, 2013)

This is common sense. Talk about wasting time.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 19, 2013)

Gunners said:


> You can look your best without looking like some cheap groupie. Dressing like a cheap groupie is actually the opposite of someone looking their best, it just makes them look classless.



My problem with this is that in the supposedly 'slutty' pic she doesn't really look that slutty. Extend her skirt by an inch and there really is nothing wrong with the outfit. In a lot of cultures aside from westernized society the women try to look nice whenever they leave the house, which I see nothing wrong with. It's really only in westernized society that women looking as horrible and plain as possible when leaving the house is seen as a virtue.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 19, 2013)

Related to thread.




> The Economics of ?Slut-Shaming?
> 
> by Andrea Castillo
> July 2, 2013
> ...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

Sarahmint said:


> With OP's name, avatar, and post I can't help but get a r/redpill vibe from "Aging Boner"



I actually was hoping that the poster was Raging Boner with a new name. I got fucking giddy and everything.


----------



## Blunt (Nov 19, 2013)

i love sluts

and treachery


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

Most guys love "sluts" when they're the ones getting fucked by them. It becomes a dirty word the second she actively chooses to fuck someone else. How dare she give pussy to someone else, what a terrible person she must be.


----------



## Sablés (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Most guys love "sluts" when they're the ones getting fucked by them. It becomes a dirty word the second she actively chooses to fuck someone else. How dare she give pussy to someone else, what a terrible person she must be.


----------



## Blunt (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Most guys love "sluts" when they're the ones getting fucked by them. It becomes a dirty word the second she actively chooses to fuck someone else. How dare she give pussy to someone else, what a terrible person she must be.


sluts are wonderful beings

so generous


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 19, 2013)

Shaming female promiscuity or 'slut shaming' as the thread puts it is not a creation of women: it's a creation of men. Women may enforce the perception occasionally but it's men who overwhelmingly purport it.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 19, 2013)

MbS said:


> Shaming female promiscuity or 'slut shaming' as the thread puts it is not a creation of women: it's a creation of men. Women may enforce the perception occasionally but it's men who overwhelmingly purport it.



So... your going to completely ignore the scientific study that shows otherwise, and reassert your opinion based solely on your preconceived notions and stereotypes. 

Good to know we are par for the course on NF.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> So... your going to completely ignore the scientific study that shows otherwise, and reassert your opinion based solely on your preconceived notions and stereotypes.
> 
> Good to know we are par for the course on NF.


Where does the study say it's created by women? It might be enforced by them (partially), but it's a societal thing that goes back to ideas about religion and decency which are things mostly decided upon and brought into being by men.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where does the study say it's created by women? It might be enforced by them (partially), but it's a societal thing that goes back to ideas about religion and decency which are things mostly decided upon and brought into being by men.



Actually slut shaming can be done by women simply for their own economic self interest (basically women don't like sluts the same reason union members don't like scabs/low cost immigrants, it hurts their economic negotiating power) that has nothing to do with religion or decency. Another reason is simply "mate guarding" aka making sure some other women doesn't steal your man.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Nov 19, 2013)

> But when she wore the other outfit, virtually all the students reacted with hostility.



This study is total bullshit. Boys would not react to that outfit with hostility and most girls wouldn't care what she was wearing, especially on a college level.

The fact that they claimed that "virtually all" students regarded her with hostility because of an outfit like that (which really isn't even that skimpy compared to stuff I have seen), just proves how moronic this study is.


----------



## Selina Kyle (Nov 19, 2013)

> and there’s no longer any scientific doubt that both sexes are in to win it.



as long as we think we're winning something from each other.




PikaCheeka said:


> This study is total bullshit. Boys would not react to that outfit with hostility and most girls wouldn't care what she was wearing, especially on a college level.
> 
> The fact that they claimed that "virtually all" students regarded her with hostility because of an outfit like that (which really isn't even that skimpy compared to stuff I have seen), just proves how moronic this study is.



maybe it is bs. but i've seen stuff like this happen, even in college level. 
happens at work too. 
the best way to win this is to work in the prostitution ring to out-slut each other.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

hcheng02 said:


> Actually slut shaming can be done by women simply for their own economic self interest (basically women don't like sluts the same reason union members don't like scabs/low cost immigrants, it hurts their economic negotiating power) that has nothing to do with religion or decency. Another reason is simply "mate guarding" aka making sure some other women doesn't steal your man.


No one can steal a faithful man and no other woman should be rattling your confidence if you're in a relationship. Scabs and lost cost immigrants is a totally different thing because we're talking about a business relationship. Women and men should be in a mutually beneficial emotional and physical relationship if there's going to be one of that type. If someone has to slam others to keep them away from their mate then their problem is more with their mate than the other person. 

And really, the way you're claiming it to be is is working against them because the idea sluts do things normal women won't do just makes the normal woman less appealing slightly to her man. 

These things do trace back to stuff like Victorian sensibilities and biblical purity, it's hard to claim it's not when they teach the shit in schools to this day.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 19, 2013)

I encourage this, since it inspires women to try harder to keep men from straying.  A competition in which we just sit back and enjoy.  No matter what happens, we win.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Nov 19, 2013)

Selina Kyle said:


> maybe it is bs. but i've seen stuff like this happen, even in college level.
> happens at work too.
> the best way to win this is to work in the prostitution ring to out-slut each other.



You've seen girls who wear short skirts regarded with "hostility" by _every single person_ in the classroom, both male and female? 



I've been a student at four unis and a teaching assistant at one. I went to a Catholic school, too. Even there, that "fact" didn't hold true. 

Yes, girls can be nasty. We all know that. But this study is just making shit up.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 19, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> This study is total bullshit. Boys would not react to that outfit with hostility and most girls wouldn't care what she was wearing, especially on a college level.
> 
> The fact that they claimed that "virtually all" students regarded her with hostility because of an outfit like that (which really isn't even that skimpy compared to stuff I have seen), just proves how moronic this study is.



There's more spurious reasoning still:

The argument is made in the article that media influences trends very little because women are not dissatisfied with their bodies as a direct result of watching televisions or other media depictions of beautiful women. But if you notice, the latter part of that sentence has nothing to do with the former part whatsoever.

IF women were dissatisfied with their own bodies after watching television or other media depictions of beautiful women then that STILL wouldn't say anything about whether or not media creates the trends or follows them.

It would only be true iff it was the case that trends are communicated only when people are dissatisfied with their own body. We could then conclude that, yes, if you see something that makes you dissatisfied with your own body then YES a trend is communicated or whatever.


----------



## Morgan (Nov 19, 2013)

Bare Cuntery.  This "study" doesn't even take into account the role of different cultures.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ez (Nov 19, 2013)

now you all know if you are attractive men or not


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 19, 2013)

Hey its not our fault that we think the one on the left is harder.

The only women who can complain are ugly ones.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> Hey its not our fault that we think the one on the left is harder.
> 
> The only women who can complain are ugly ones.


It's the same woman, only one of them is dressed like a Wal-Mart employee.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Where does the study say it's created by women? It might be enforced by them (partially), but it's a societal thing that goes back to ideas about religion and decency which are things mostly decided upon and brought into being by men.



here I will quote the study


> Stigmatizing female promiscuity ? a.k.a. slut-shaming ? has often been blamed on men, who have a Darwinian incentive to discourage their spouses from straying. But they also have a Darwinian incentive to encourage other women to be promiscuous. Dr. Vaillancourt said the experiment and other research suggest the stigma is enforced mainly by women.
> 
> ?Sex is coveted by men,? she said. ?Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.?


----------



## ez (Nov 19, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> You've seen girls who wear short skirts regarded with "hostility" by _every single person_ in the classroom, both male and female?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



well it's a good thing that you've looked at the data yourself


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> here I will quote the study


That doesn't say what you claimed. It says it's mainly enforced by women, it doesn't say that the societal stigma was created by women.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That doesn't say what you claimed. It says it's mainly enforced by women, it doesn't say that the societal stigma was created by women.



Even under the assumption that they did not create that stigma, does that excuse women for brutally enforcing it?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Even under the assumption that they did not create that stigma, does that excuse women for brutally enforcing it?


First off, men also enforce it. Second the point was the Mbs said something and someone stepped in and tried to correct her. I was simply setting that person straight. What's right or wrong about the action wasn't the point, so stop trying to change the point I was making.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That doesn't say what you claimed. It says it's mainly enforced by women, it doesn't say that the societal stigma was created by women.


You said "mostly decided upon and brought into being by men" the study says "the stigma is enforced mainly by women."

Who "created" isn't specifically stated men or women, but considering that it is mainly a woman against woman social construct it implies women created it. 

It definitely goes against it being a male construct.

Mbs also said 
"it's men who overwhelmingly purport it." which is directly stated by the study as being wrong.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 19, 2013)

Instead of ‘slut shaming’ why can’t men raise their game instead and keep a woman interested?



sadated_peon said:


> So... your going to completely ignore the scientific study that shows otherwise, and reassert your opinion based solely on your preconceived notions and stereotypes.
> 
> Good to know we are par for the course on NF.



There's nothing of the sort to suggest women created it. The article even makes it a point that Slut shaming is a form of control to keep the woman from straying. Giving credence to it being a male construct.



sadated_peon said:


> Who "created" isn't specifically stated men or women, but considering that it is mainly a woman against woman social construct it implies women created it.
> 
> It definitely goes against it being a male construct.



No, it doesn't, that's just confirmation bias on your part. And the research only suggests, there's no definitive proof women are the major enforcers of it.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 19, 2013)

MbS said:


> Instead of ?slut shaming? why can?t men raise their game instead and keep a woman interested?



Who's to say a man's game isn't raised?  If he has women fighting over him his game is likely already high, and it's the path of the least work for the most benefit.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 19, 2013)

MbS said:


> There's nothing of the sort to suggest women created it. The article even makes it a point that Slut shaming is a form of control to keep the woman from straying. Giving credence to it being a male construct.


I quoted it saying it was a construct of
"women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”"


MbS said:


> No, it doesn't, that's just confirmation bias on your part. And the research only suggests, there's no definitive proof women are the major enforcers of it.


The research points there, definitive proof is impossible and a research pointing to it is better than your opinion to the contrary. 

Non-definite proof =/= your assumptions being correct. 
Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Nov 19, 2013)

You are kind of late. The girl in the picture did this like 2 years ago.


----------



## Mizura (Nov 19, 2013)

Eeeh. I know women can be bitches, I won't argue about that.

But this article really is missing a lot. It says that slut-shaming is enforced mainly by women. That, however, would be very culture specific. In many cultures, it'd rather work like this:
- It is primarily enforced by men of the Family.
- Outside the family, the stigma is mostly upheld by women. Stranger men won't enforce the stigma, because greater access to sex is in their best interest.

In some countries, women are still forced to wear veils, and then we have "honor killings" which are mostly enforced by males of the family. Thankfully those are mostly gone in "civilized" countries, leaving the stigma to be enforced by women, but historically, men were the greater enforcers, who'd simply beat up women under their influence who don't respect their norms.

All that said, it's sad that we're still in a culture where looks matter so much to one's relationship. I'm a girl too, but I enjoy looking at pretty women just fine ("Hey look! Isn't she pretty?  ") If I had a male partner who'd dump me just because someone else looks prettier, I'd need a new boyfriend. :\


----------



## Blunt (Nov 19, 2013)

I agree with Mizura. The study should've explored the issue in more depth in other cultures. If you're going to make a claim like this, you need to put it in perspective. A woman in the USA might be called a slut by her female coworkers for wearing a low cut top, but a woman in certain Middle Eastern cultures can be "slut shamed" for showing her ankles. And in those cultures, the consequences of slut shaming can be far more severe than some unkind words and attitudes as is the norm in these situations in Western cultures.



MbS said:


> Instead of ‘slut shaming’ why can’t men raise their game instead and keep a woman interested?


I'm not sure if your generalization was intentional or not but, you do realize that generalizing all men as slut shamers - essentially misogynists - is just as bad as men generalizing all women as sluts, right?


----------



## TheGreatOne (Nov 19, 2013)

Why are people arguing who created it in here? The study says women are the main offenders when it comes to enforcing slut shaming, thats what we should be talking about in here, not who created the idea


----------



## colours (Nov 19, 2013)

i love you miz


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 19, 2013)

TheGreatOne said:


> Why are people arguing who created it in here? The study says women are the main offenders when it comes to enforcing slut shaming, thats what we should be talking about in here, not who created the idea



Because many people in this forum refuse to accept that women can be responsible for anything negative in society.


----------



## Meikun (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's the same woman, only one of them is dressed like a Wal-Mart employee.



You can't call her a Wal-Mart employee without those sad, depressed eyes. It's even more mandatory than the badge!


----------



## Shizune (Nov 19, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Even under the assumption that they did not create that stigma, does that excuse women for brutally enforcing it?



Nope and anybody who disagrees is confused about what feminism is.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

blunt said:


> I agree with Mizura. The study should've explored the issue in more depth in other cultures. If you're going to make a claim like this, you need to put it in perspective. A woman in the USA might be called a slut by her female coworkers for wearing a low cut top, but a woman in certain Middle Eastern cultures can be "slut shamed" for showing her ankles. And in those cultures, the consequences of slut shaming can be far more severe than some unkind words and attitudes as is the norm in these situations in Western cultures.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if your generalization was intentional or not but, you do realize that generalizing all men as slut shamers - essentially misogynists - is just as bad as men generalizing all women as sluts, right?


The only culture that matters is white American.


----------



## Blunt (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The only culture that matters is white American.


I am a white American.


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's the same woman, only one of them is dressed like a Wal-Mart employee.



I meant to say hotter.

And when did I ever say that it was a different woman. Within 5 seconds into the thread i 'clearly' realized that they were the same woman.


And the one of the left isn't dressed all that bad. Ive seen some god awefull looking women in wal mart that needed to cover up a lot more than they was.


----------



## IchLiebe (Nov 19, 2013)

blunt said:


> I am a white American.



Luck be with you friend, because the government isn't.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 19, 2013)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> I'll never shame a woman who goes out of her way to look her best whenever possible. In fact, I think this behavior should be publicly promoted and rewarded.
> 
> Part of me wonders if the 'fat acceptance' movement, and the constant 'you go girl!' telling of ugly women how pretty they are are actually women being passive aggressive in an attempt to reduce competition for themselves. The equivalent of leading a blind man off a bridge with bad advice.



Thank you, you took the words right outta my mind.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Nov 19, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> You've seen girls who wear short skirts regarded with "hostility" by _every single person_ in the classroom, both male and female?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eh, you can't possibly know that. It actually makes sense in an experimental environment. Someone's reaction in a normal environment versus one where they know they are expected to offer an opinion and then asked one is different. They are likely to confabulate. But the thing about confabulation is that it has been shown that people do tend to report their prejudices, if not necessarily their emotive states, when they do it.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 19, 2013)

I always thought women or men who call a beautiful women a slut are jelly. The women cause they wished they were half as cute and the men cause they know they'll never sleep with her.  It's a vicious thing.

Anyways, women should be able to sleep with whoever they want. They are beautiful.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> I always thought women or men who call a beautiful women a slut are jelly. The women cause they wished they were half as cute and the men cause they know they'll never sleep with her.  It's a vicious thing.
> 
> Anyways, women should be able to sleep with whoever they want. They are beautiful.



A beautiful wom*e*n?  And they can sleep with whoever they want, they're just sluts if they do, nobody stops them.  Men are lucky that they don't have to worry about that.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Nov 19, 2013)

MbS said:


> Instead of ‘slut shaming’ why can’t men raise their game instead and keep a woman interested?



Well the gist of this article was that slut shaming might be a form of social stigmatizing to keep the bar high for men trying to sleep with a woman.


Mider T said:


> A beautiful wom*e*n?  And they can sleep with whoever they want, they're just sluts if they do, nobody stops them.  Men are lucky that they don't have to worry about that.



The thing is, they do. Only it's less common, particularly amongst their own gender. Women have reason to be concerned about the reliability of a heavily sexual male so it comes from that angle. But while it's true that sexual demand drives more strongly from the male angle, sexual demand from the female absolutely does exist, and one can see how a society could develop in a such a way that men who monopolize multiple women might be frowned upon.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> I always thought women or men who call a beautiful women a slut are jelly. The women cause they wished they were half as cute and the men cause they know they'll never sleep with her.  It's a vicious thing.
> 
> Anyways, women should be able to sleep with whoever they want. They are beautiful.



A key that can open many locks is a good key.  A lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock.

This is irrefutable factual evidence that promiscuous women are sluts and promiscuous men are bros.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 19, 2013)

I think a point that a lot of people are overlooking that I found particularly interesting was the implication of just how much power women wield when it comes to sex negotiation. I always thought it was odd how women have all the power yet men are burdened with the responsibility for her choice.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> A beautiful wom*e*n?  And they can sleep with whoever they want, they're just sluts if they do, nobody stops them.  Men are lucky that they don't have to worry about that.



No they're not. They may just simply enjoy sex. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with a woman who enjoys sex. You're just immature so of course you would be intimidated by a confident, beautiful woman.


afgpride said:


> A key that can open many locks is a good key.  A lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock.
> 
> This is irrefutable factual evidence that promiscuous women are sluts and promiscuous men are bros.



Women are the keys and men are the locks.


Honestly, what is wrong with the men in here? There are women who are free spirits and they should be allowed to fuck whoever they want without this bullshit.  Maybe you guys are insecure and thus feel the need to hold beautiful women down.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Nov 19, 2013)

The key/lock metaphor _would_ work, if that was the purpose of male or female sexuality. But there was never a period in history where reproduction was a desirable good for it's own sake without consideration for social context. Likewise, early anthropological records indicated that promiscuous women were not uncommon, given that in a community child-rearing situation, ensuring male access to sex was a socially stabilizing factor. (Plus there have been some interesting beliefs about pregnancy that include the idea that a baby is simply accumulated sperm, so having sex with many men ensures the strongest babies). Over time that has shifted, and yet still, it doesn't make sense. To some extent, the female aspect makes more sense since it really might not be wise for a woman to be sexually promiscuous in a society where the costs are high and community support is low. But the male aspect does not make sense, since while the reproduction rate arguably could be tweaked upwards, in Western countries, it certainly does not need widespread pregnancy nor indeed does it seem that industries devoted to ending pregnancies could be said to be an affirmative good in need of active pursuit.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> Women are the keys and men are the locks.


If that was the case then God would have gave penises to women and vaginas to men.  But that isn't the case now is it?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> No they're not. They may just simply enjoy sex. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with a woman who enjoys sex. You're just immature so of course you would be intimidated by a confident, beautiful woman.



The consequences of a woman having lots of sex are far more troubling than a man, I think nature realizes this and wires them to not try to hop every mate but instead find the best.

Obviously this isn't the same for a man.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> No they're not. They may just simply enjoy sex. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with a woman who enjoys sex. You're just immature so of course you would be intimidated by a confident, beautiful woman.
> 
> 
> Women are the keys and men are the locks.
> ...



It's not about "holding anyone back or down... or whatever" at least not for me, I don't judge.  It's about keeping it real. A woman who has sex with a bunch of guys should not be thought of as equivalent as a man who does the same feat but with the opposite sex. One is impressive, the other is less so, rightfully so. We saw the video with the man who asked 100 women on the street for sex. A man has to make a woman comfortable to get something out of her, a woman just has to show up.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> No they're not. They may just simply enjoy sex. What's wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with a woman who enjoys sex. You're just immature so of course you would be intimidated by a confident, beautiful woman.
> 
> 
> Women are the keys and men are the locks.
> ...



As a woman and a nympho I think I can say the number of women who have sex a lot who are both beautiful and confident and doing it purely from a love of sex are, as a percentage, rather low. Sex is a good deal more complicated than simple pleasure in most cases, and the feelings and power games associated with it make it unrealistic to expect everyone to simply shrug off the sexual exploits of others. Addressing the biting edges of sex and society's judgement requires a lot more than simply repeating "let whomever fuck whomever they want" like a mantra. It won't help any of the women out there who get badly hurt playing at that game when they are ill prepared. Or men, for that matter. By the same token, the men who glorify the standard of the "master key" really don't get anything any better. It's patently absurd to think that the comparatively low resource cost of male sexuality is a relevant feature of sexual dynamics in a society that is built around a whole lot more than just sex itself.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 19, 2013)

afgpride said:


> If that was the case then God would have gave penises to women and vaginas to men.  But that isn't the case now is it?




Penises aren't locks. Have you ever seen one? They're not locks. Maybe you need to do research.



Mider T said:


> The consequences of a woman having lots of sex are far more troubling than a man, I think nature realizes this and wires them to not try to hop every mate but instead find the best.
> 
> Obviously this isn't the same for a man.



What? STDs dont care what gender you are and your points are shit. It takes two to make a baby.

You are just insecure. I'm sorry your penises is little. That's not the woman's fault. 

Women should be confident and be able to have sex with whoever they desire without you assholes talking crap.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> Penises aren't locks. Have you ever seen one? They're not locks. Maybe you need to do research.



Exactly, I agree 100%.  Penises aren't locks. 
















They are keys.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 19, 2013)

afgpride said:


> Exactly, I agree 100%.  Penises aren't locks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I fucking hate you lmao. I'm multitasking okay. I made a mistake.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 19, 2013)

Normality said:


> What? STDs dont care what gender you are and your points are shit. It takes two to make a baby.
> 
> You are just insecure. I'm sorry your penises is little. That's not the woman's fault.
> 
> Women should be confident and be able to have sex with whoever they desire without you assholes talking crap.



I wasn't talking about STDs but then again you think I have "penises" so it's clear how much you know about biology in general.  I'll leave you to your 101 class


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> I wasn't talking about STDs but then again you think I have "penises" so it's clear how much you know about biology in general.  I'll leave you to your 101 class



Someone's been watching too much tentacle porn.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> I wasn't talking about STDs but then again you think I have "penises" so it's clear how much you know about biology in general.  I'll leave you to your 101 class



Well I'm multitasking shit head so of course I'm going to make mistakes.


Anyways, you guys are just misogynistic pigs. You disgust me and I have zero respect for you. Take your little dicks to get castrated. Maybe then you guys will learn respect for the female sex.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 19, 2013)

"A bitch is a bitch, a ho is a ho, and a woman is a woman" - Tupac

"A slut is a slut" - Jesus


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

Whoa, did I just walk into /r/theredpill?


----------



## MegaultraHay (Nov 19, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Whoa, did I just walk into /r/theredpill?


>People keep bringing up reddit
Whoa, did I just walk into 4chan?
You seem to become snippy recentley.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 19, 2013)

MegaultraHay said:


> >People keep bringing up reddit
> Whoa, did I just walk into 4chan?
> You seem to become snippy recentley.



I haven't been here recently...


----------



## ShadowReij (Nov 19, 2013)

Come on now was it really necessary to research such an obvious answer? Women eat each other alive. We men just try to stay clear.


----------



## cnorwood (Nov 20, 2013)

See if women stayed in the kitchen they would have no competition therefore wouldnt be bitchy to eachother


----------



## dummy plug (Nov 20, 2013)

alright, now its official


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 20, 2013)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXZ6oDG9mnY[/youtube]


----------



## Kanga (Nov 20, 2013)

No shit, Sherlock.


----------



## Daxter (Nov 20, 2013)

I can't be bothered to read through all the pages of this thread, I already know there's going to be a lot of crap being thrown around about this that and the other, insert anti feminists here, etc etc.

Anyways, it's never been a secret woman is woman's own worst enemy. Women have always been, in my opinion, of the extremes; they bond very very well, they antagonise even better. Men who mistreat women are a whole different beast I believe. They don't belong in this category of enemy. Misogynistic men tend to view women as animals or objects, but women who antagonise other women do so in a territorial sort of way, a threatened sort of way - they don't see other women as objects, there is none of that odd detachment - it's rather the opposite for female instigators. I think women have an inherent understanding of one another, something that seems to negate the objectifying habit misogynistic men have, but because of that strange... uh womanly instinct shall we call it, they know just how to wound the opposition in a way men cannot - in a way you can only hurt a woman, not an object. They're so good at it its scary, this is well documented. Male gendered persons may never fully understand how psychologically intricate female society can be.

Needless to say I feel women are infinitely complex creatures. I don't think they can be summed up so simply. Generally speaking, as best I can, I do feel women enforce a lot of women's own problems. You see women such as those in the State's extreme right conservative movement who quite literally make themselves proud to enforce rigid gender roles and call it power to be the picture of classic femininity. Men do have a part to play in all this, but in this day and age it is well within woman's power (in the west and other developed countries) to break away from archaic 'rules' cultivated from centuries of patriarchy. 

Of course you will have radical feminist extremists who seek to blame men for everything, but they are not the majority. Women are just as capable of manifest destiny as men are, they just have to work a little harder to overcome the lasting effects of oppression. 

In regards to the slut business, the article points something very good out here.



> “Sex is coveted by men,” she said. “Accordingly, women limit access as a way of maintaining advantage in the negotiation of this resource. Women who make sex too readily available compromise the power-holding position of the group, which is why many women are particularly intolerant of women who are, or seem to be, promiscuous.”



I really think this just boils down to biology, which is always changing, however slowly to adapt to contemporary society. Men are celebrated when they are promiscuous, but this stems from their biological need to spread their seed as much as possible. Women biologically seek a single perfect partner best suited to father her offspring. I think we're probably just at a cross road where society is just surpassing biology and we need a moment to catch up. Sex serves no purpose other than pleasure for a lot of women, which contradicts biology to some extent, even if logically, it should be just fine in this day and age. 

I have my own personal opinions on sluts, of both genders. While I can agree women (and men) should be free to enjoy sex, I feel engaging in it with numerous partners in a short amount of time is irresponsible and a cue for some deeper psychological issues. It is also well known that women will often 'peacock' for attention, out of need not for sex, but for acceptance. Some women (and I imagine men as well) will essentially sell themselves, even if it means giving away sex, so they can feel needed, wanted and accepted. This is what gives me (and I imagine maybe not all, but definitely some others) a negative impression of perceived 'sluts'. It feels tryhard, fake, needy, and it's not always done out of a simple love for sex.

In the end I don't know what conclusion I should have. I just think the right idea is lost somewhere in the middle of all this.


----------



## Gino (Nov 20, 2013)

Instead of wasting time on of study of common sense at this point they should have spent money elsewhere.This is the fault of men and women for all peeps in this thread saying otherwise no one has time for your agenda.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 20, 2013)

Daxter said:


> Anyways, it's never been a secret woman is woman's own worst enemy. Women have always been, in my opinion, of the extremes; they bond very very well, they antagonise even better. Men who mistreat women are a whole different beast I believe. They don't belong in this category of enemy. Misogynistic men tend to view women as animals or objects, but women who antagonise other women do so in a territorial sort of way, a threatened sort of way - they don't see other women as objects, there is none of that odd detachment - it's rather the opposite for female instigators. I think women have an inherent understanding of one another, something that seems to negate the objectifying habit misogynistic men have, but because of that strange... uh womanly instinct shall we call it, they know just how to wound the opposition in a way men cannot - in a way you can only hurt a woman, not an object. They're so good at it its scary, this is well documented. Male gendered persons may never fully understand how psychologically intricate female society can be.



I have no overall problem with your post a few disagreements but nothing major worth a reply. 

Though I will ask you why you used the word misogynist. Misogynist means 
"Of or characterized by a hatred of women."


Is this really what your trying to describe? A person who hates women. A racist who hates people who are black doesn't seek out to marry/have sex with black women. 

A person who hates gay people doesn't seek their affection. 

But a person who treats women as objects, and attempts to have sex with them doesn't hate women. A man who hates women would not want to interact with women. He would refuse contact, like the racist does. 

I think the word your looking for is male chauvinist
"A man whose behavior and attitude toward women indicate a belief that they are innately inferior to men."


I have no idea why there seems to be this shift from the identification of such people from "male chauvinist" to "misogynistic". But it seems misuse of the terms. 

Do you have a explanation?


----------



## Daxter (Nov 20, 2013)

I did intend to convey chauvinism at some points, I didn't use the absolute term, I uh, apologise? Though the two can overlap as I see it, men who hate women can also feel they're inferior/object-like and treat them like so. Women who hate women and attack other women feels entirely separate from how men do it, that's the sum of it.

I'm sure you know exactly what I mean and are just nit picking because. That's my ... explanation...

Is there some freaky nf word police going on this morning? Suddenly I must make sure my English is absolute or else.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 20, 2013)

Daxter said:


> I did intend to convey chauvinism at some points, I didn't use the absolute term, I uh, apologise? Though the two can overlap as I see it, men who hate women can also feel they're inferior/object-like and treat them like so. Women who hate women and attack other women feels entirely separate from how men do it, that's the sum of it.
> 
> I'm sure you know exactly what I mean and are just nit picking because. That's my ... explanation...
> 
> Is there some freaky nf word police going on this morning? Suddenly I must make sure my English is absolute or else.



Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out. But I have been noticing a trend going on where the word misogynist is replacing male chauvinist and was wondering why.

*also sorry about poor grammar of last reply...


----------



## Morgan (Nov 20, 2013)

There's hardly anything, if any, commonsense in their so called study. It's mostly bullshit.


----------



## Gino (Nov 20, 2013)

Morgan said:


> There's hardly anything, if any, commonsense in their so called study. It's mostly bullshit.



That's good.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 20, 2013)

blunt said:


> I'm not sure if your generalization was intentional or not but, you do realize that generalizing all men as slut shamers - essentially misogynists - is just as bad as men generalizing all women as sluts, right?



Just as bad? Well, no. You see not all women are sluts, but almost all misogynists are men.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Nov 20, 2013)

MbS said:


> Just as bad? Well, no. You see not all women are sluts, but almost all misogynists are men.



You girls can be pretty hateful to one another.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 20, 2013)

What exactly constitutes a misogynist? If we're talking attitudes then I'm sure you'll find just as many misogynistic women as there are men. 
 I've seen people use misogynist as a general insult for a man who doesn't go along with any feminist ordained teachings.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 20, 2013)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> What exactly constitutes a misogynist? If we're talking attitudes then I'm sure you'll find just as many misogynistic women as there are men.
> I've seen people use misogynist as a general insult for a man who doesn't go along with any feminist ordained teachings.


You've more than likely seen it applied to people correctly if they go around talking about this key and lock nonsense or saying things that are benevolently sexist (like women are fragile ethereal beings that need constant protection because their real beauty and strength is inside blah blah blah). 

The problem with this thread is that it seems like a bunch of people are trying to blame women for all that's wrong in society for them, like these are constructs they created solely or maintain solely. The reason why Mbs and Norma take offense to that is because it would be like coming in here and acting like slavery never happened, Jim Crow, Emmit Till, and Black Wallstreet never happened and just being like "why are blacks so down trodden and why do they play like they're misunderstood victims?" 

Because for a long time a good portion of white America treated them like shit and didn't understand them! 

Women were second class citizens for a long time, there were propaganda films and booklets and things said in church that taught them how to act and a lot of that's engrained in our society. I've seen churches RECENTLY teach this shit. And not small churches, huge ones. 

I've heard about schools teaching women that having sex is like sticking tape to something dirty, once you do it it'll never be clean again (Zaru's girlfriend showed me that article). The point I'm trying to make is that sexism is so institutionalized that simply blaming women is fucking ridiculous. The average person can't see their way out of shitty marketing schemes perpetrated by companies, do you think they'd be able to see their way out of hundreds of years of tradition and conditioning?


----------



## Zaru (Nov 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> (Zaru's girlfriend showed me that article)



My what now


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 20, 2013)

Zaru said:


> My what now


Unless you broke up recently. I don't know what's going on in this place anymore.


----------



## Gunners (Nov 20, 2013)

Didn't you just objectify her? I mean she has a name, yet you referred to her as Zaru's girlfriend- as though she was an object of his.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 20, 2013)

Gunner's grandma is pretty nice.

I JUST OBJECTIFIED YOUR GRANDMOTHER, WHAT U GONNA DO


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You've more than likely seen it applied to people correctly if they go around talking about this key and lock nonsense or saying things that are benevolently sexist (like women are fragile ethereal beings that need constant protection because their real beauty and strength is inside blah blah blah).
> 
> The problem with this thread is that it seems like a bunch of people are trying to blame women for all that's wrong in society for them, like these are constructs they created solely or maintain solely. The reason why Mbs and Norma take offense to that is because it would be like coming in here and acting like slavery never happened, Jim Crow, Emmit Till, and Black Wallstreet never happened and just being like "why are blacks so down trodden and why do they play like they're misunderstood victims?"
> 
> ...



I think you give men far too much credit and women not enough credit. At what point, do you see women actually becoming accountable for anything? I don't think comparing women to blacks is an accurate analogy at all. There's a reason why blacks live shorter on average with lower quality of life outcomes. The same can't be said of women. Most women's problems I think are a product of choices and not of circumstance, there's lingering pockets of discrimination here and there but it's not at all institutionalized the same way it is for other groups. Women are not at the bottom of any quality of life indicator that I'm aware of whether it's education, healtcare, jobs, safety, whatever.


----------



## baconbits (Nov 20, 2013)

Not really seeing the argument in here.  Yes, women do most of the slut shaming in our society.  Men don't have much of an incentive to do most of the slut shaming that goes on, and the study proves this.

What created slut shaming?  No one knows and thus its pointless to argue about.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 20, 2013)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> I think you give men far too much credit and women not enough credit. At what point, do you see women actually becoming accountable for anything? I don't think comparing women to blacks is an accurate analogy at all. There's a reason why blacks live shorter on average with lower quality of life outcomes. The same can't be said of women. Most women's problems I think are a product of choices and not of circumstance, there's lingering pockets of discrimination here and there but it's not at all institutionalized the same way it is for other groups. Women are not at the bottom of any quality of life indicator that I'm aware of whether it's education, healtcare, jobs, safety, whatever.





You were saying? And if schools are teaching it, it's institutionalized. That's kind of what it means when you have people indoctrinating children with the prissy girl/ macho guy stereotypes that seem to do more harm than good.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 20, 2013)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> I think you give men far too much credit and women not enough credit. At what point, do you see women actually becoming accountable for anything? I don't think comparing women to blacks is an accurate analogy at all. There's a reason why blacks live shorter on average with lower quality of life outcomes. The same can't be said of women. Most women's problems I think are a product of choices and not of circumstance, there's lingering pockets of discrimination here and there but it's not at all institutionalized the same way it is for other groups. Women are not at the bottom of any quality of life indicator that I'm aware of whether it's education, healtcare, jobs, safety, whatever.



Here we go again with you.

Yo womenz, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish but black people are the most discriminated people of all time, *of all time!*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 20, 2013)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> I think you give men far too much credit and women not enough credit. At what point, do you see women actually becoming accountable for anything? I don't think comparing women to blacks is an accurate analogy at all. There's a reason why blacks live shorter on average with lower quality of life outcomes. The same can't be said of women. Most women's problems I think are a product of choices and not of circumstance, there's lingering pockets of discrimination here and there but it's not at all institutionalized the same way it is for other groups. Women are not at the bottom of any quality of life indicator that I'm aware of whether it's education, healtcare, jobs, safety, whatever.





MbS said:


> Here we go again with you.
> 
> Yo womenz, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish but black people are the most discriminated people of all time, *of all time!*





Ah never mind.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 20, 2013)

sedated peon said:
			
		

> But a person who treats women as objects, and attempts to have sex with them doesn't hate women. A man who hates women would not want to interact with women. He would refuse contact, like the racist does.



Not entirely true, a man that hates women doesn't mean a man with an absence of lust for women. Oftentimes, these kind of men get off on sexually dominating and/or humiliating women or having aggressive and violent sex. Hatred of women can stem from multiple things, one of which is sexual frustration after all. It's kind of like the closeted homophobe whom struggles with their homosexual attractions, oftentimes yielding to the latter.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 20, 2013)

baconbits said:


> Not really seeing the argument in here.  Yes, women do most of the slut shaming in our society.  Men don't have much of an incentive to do most of the slut shaming that goes on, and the study proves this.
> 
> What created slut shaming?  No one knows and thus its pointless to argue about.



I was going to say this, but I think people would rather argue for argument's sake.

No matter who you are, if you are a part of a cause or group of people, others will criticize you, move on.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 20, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Not entirely true, a man that hates women doesn't mean a man with an absence of lust for women. Oftentimes, these kind of men get off on sexually dominating and/or humiliating women or having aggressive and violent sex. Hatred of women can stem from multiple things, one of which is sexual frustration after all. It's kind of like the closeted homophobe whom struggles with their homosexual attractions, oftentimes yielding to the latter.



Actually that's were I was going with that. If you hate something you don't lust after it. Hate is the rejection of that thing, despising it to it's very core. 

I would say that the closet homosexual who is outwardly hostile to gay people has not having a hatred of gay people. That person secretly lusts for them, and the outward appearing is a mask for true feelings. 

Judging on outward appearance isn't to me the correct way of doing it.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 20, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> Actually that's were I was going with that. If you hate something you don't lust after it. Hate is the rejection of that thing, despising it to it's very core.
> 
> I would say that the closet homosexual who is outwardly hostile to gay people has not having a hatred of gay people. That person secretly lusts for them, and the outward appearing is a mask for true feelings.
> 
> Judging on outward appearance isn't to me the correct way of doing it.



But wouldn't the closet homosexual in your example be considered self-denial? Seems to me he/she feels that he/she is wrong and takes it out openly on others. If so, could that be a hate for gays and thus a hate for self?


----------



## Ayakashi (Nov 20, 2013)

Interesting article, OP, and it's true

but it's not so bad also, because women as a group do benefit from not acting slutty.

I feel women are worse when they feel direct competition for a target than hostility for something as general stated in the article.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 20, 2013)

Bishop said:


> But wouldn't the closet homosexual in your example be considered self-denial? Seems to me he/she feels that he/she is wrong and takes it out openly on others. If so, could that be a hate for gays and thus a hate for self?



I think this is just getting into poetic semantics. If you look at a cock and think "I want that in my mouth" you don't hate it.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Ah never mind.




He's the one that's comparing apples to oranges, I'm just clarifying. If they're really that comparable then you should be able to compare them at things that actually matter and there should be some overlap. The quality of your education, how long you live and whether or not you're treated fairly by systems actually matters if you want to make that particular argument. All of these areas women outperform men but no one chalks this up to being indicative to some sort of female privilege. I just think it's weird that people are quick to associate women with blacks, but overlook the areas in which there are some pretty glaring discrepancies that would suggest otherwise such as bias in the judicial system and homeless/poverty figures. Women under represent incarcerated populations relative to men but no one connects that to pseudo racial oppression arguments.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 20, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You were saying? And if schools are teaching it, it's institutionalized. That's kind of what it means when you have people indoctrinating children with the prissy girl/ macho guy stereotypes that seem to do more harm than good.



Just where are you trying to go with that? Black women are more privileged than white women? White patriarchy is killing white women but not black women? Your argument is patriarchy is the cause of everything, but surprisingly that article doesn''t address the life span of black males, odd I wonder why that is.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Nov 20, 2013)

For the record, repressed homosexuality and accompanying self loathing are .


----------



## Bioness (Nov 20, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]ypWaLxo32mE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bishop (Nov 20, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> I think this is just getting into poetic semantics. If you look at a cock and think "I want that in my mouth" you don't hate it.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 20, 2013)

Can someone shut zero up?


----------



## Daxter (Nov 20, 2013)

It's funny, the comparison of women as a group to blacks and their respective struggles.

It's an extremely sound comparison from where I am standing. Women, of all races, have essentially been slaves for centuries, bought, sold and abused. They _have been_ slaves for hundreds if not thousands of years post any sort of matriarchal society. 

No, a black woman isn't quite where a white woman is today, but women in general are coming from a second-class standing regardless of race, both meeting in the middle where they are overcoming long-standing traditions and practices used to keep them down.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 20, 2013)

Bioness said:


> [YOUTUBE]ypWaLxo32mE[/YOUTUBE]



Lmao, I swear I was about to post this.

This thread truly exemplifies the fact that no matter what a woman does, someone, somewhere will find a way to blame a man. Misogyny is a word used so frequently, so indiscriminately that it's lost all meaning. I had a woman playfully call me a misogynist the other night at a bar.



Daxter said:


> It's funny, the comparison of women as a group to blacks and their respective struggles.
> 
> It's an extremely sound comparison from where I am standing. Women, of all races, have essentially been slaves for centuries, bought, sold and abused. They have essentially been slaves for hundreds if not thousands of years post any sort of matriarchal society.
> 
> No, a black woman isn't quite where a white woman is today, but women in general are coming from a second-class standing regardless of race, both meeting in the middle where they are overcoming long-standing traditions and practices used to keep them down.



So not true. White women did not face hundreds of years of economic exclusion. Women in general get the death penalty less and are also given lighter sentences for the same crimes.

Nowhere in the world imprisons their population like we do to black men in the US. Making this comparison at all just shows how delusional feminists are.


----------



## Daxter (Nov 20, 2013)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> So not true. White women did not face hundreds of years of economic exclusion. Women in general get the death penalty less and are also given lighter sentences for the same crimes.
> 
> Nowhere in the world imprisons their population like we do to black men in the US. Making this comparison at all just shows how delusional feminists are.



That's sexism in itself. Women getting lighter sentences stems from the belief women are too weak/stupid/etc to do much wrong (which as we know is completely untrue). It's wrong that this shit still happens today, because even if it's beneficial sexism, it's still sexism, and any feminist saying otherwise is level 99 retarded. Women deserve no special treatment in their favour, just as much as they don't deserve any mistreatment either.

That doesn't negate the fact that women have been an oppressed group for centuries. This means even within black societies, women were let's say, fourth class (putting them below the black man, the white woman and at the top, the white man). They have been denied education, bought as house-decorations, trophies, objects for sex and bearing children against their will. The only achievement most women have been able to look forward to in the past would be being married (sold) off to a well-to-do man. 
Women only achieved the right to be seen as a legitimate class and vote only 90 something years ago, not even a century. It has only been in the last hundred years, of our entire history that the majority of women have any place to act of their own free will, or attempt to be a respected, contributing member of society. Before then, it was men, and then the pets they kept as arm or kitchen decorations.

That's not really hard to understand. You don't have to be a feminist to understand it. They're facts of life. This does not take away from black or gay or any other oppression. They are all groups that have faced terrible struggle, and women are simply very much apart of that.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Nov 20, 2013)

Normality said:


> Can someone shut zero up?



I know you're sixteen, but please act like a big girl.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 21, 2013)

Daxter said:


> That's sexism in itself. Women getting lighter sentences stems from the belief women are too weak/stupid/etc to do much wrong (which as we know is completely untrue). It's wrong that this shit still happens today, because even if it's beneficial sexism, it's still sexism, and any feminist saying otherwise is level 99 retarded. Women deserve no special treatment in their favour, just as much as they don't deserve any mistreatment either.



Both women and men will always have more empathy for women in these types of situations, that's just a fact of life.



Daxter said:


> That doesn't negate the fact that women have been an oppressed group for centuries. This means even within black societies, women were let's say, fourth class (putting them below the black man, the white woman and at the top, the white man). They have been denied education, bought as house-decorations, trophies, objects for sex and bearing children against their will. The only achievement most women have been able to look forward to in the past would be being married (sold) off to a well-to-do man.
> Women only achieved the right to be seen as a legitimate class and vote only 90 something years ago, not even a century. It has only been in the last hundred years, of our entire history that the majority of women have any place to act of their own free will, or attempt to be a respected, contributing member of society. Before then, it was men, and then the pets they kept as arm or kitchen decorations.
> 
> That's not really hard to understand. You don't have to be a feminist to understand it. They're facts of life. This does not take away from black or gay or any other oppression. They are all groups that have faced terrible struggle, and women are simply very much apart of that.


Society in general was far more oppressive for everybody, not just women. For nearly all of human history men have been fighting and dying in horrible wars while women largely were just left on the sideline. Even when one side lost the men were usually killed and the women and children were enslaved, which obviously is no way to live but certainly beats being killed outright. Every husband was not a tyrant, I doubt even most of them were. Honorable men were not abusing their wives and oppressing them. In fact, historically the hallmark of success was how well off your wife and children were. A very large portion of things men do were for women and it pisses me off when history is painted as essentially a nonstop oppression of women, because that couldn't be further from the truth. Both men and women were subject to horrible evils, but because of our size men were better able to protect ourselves than women. Men have been getting attacked, raped and enslaved by other men since the dawn of time as well.

This is why I'm so hard on feminists. Feminists have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them. Its become a rigid movement of hypersensitive women who blame men for every problem in their lives. Its quite sad that this indiscriminate blaming of men for every problem under the sun is being tolerated and even promoted by mainstream society. Even in this thread, which is purely about the way women treat women who are dressed a bit slutty based on a scientific study people found a way to blame men for it. Nonsensical claims about how men treat slutty women with "scorn" (do you guy even know what the word 'scorn' means to use it in this way?) that don't even make sense are being entertained. A bunch of women are catty towards another women and it's mens fault, even though the study explained in very clear scientific terms that the only women who men didn't want to behave slutty were their own wives/girlfriends (possibly sisters/daughters as well, but the reasons are likely different).


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 21, 2013)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Both women and men will always have more empathy for women in these types of situations, that's just a fact of life.
> 
> 
> Society in general was far more oppressive for everybody, not just women. For nearly all of human history men have been fighting and dying in horrible wars while women largely were just left on the sideline. Even when one side lost the men were usually killed and the women and children were enslaved, which obviously is no way to live but certainly beats being killed outright. Every husband was not a tyrant, I doubt even most of them were. Honorable men were not abusing their wives and oppressing them. In fact, historically the hallmark of success was how well off your wife and children were. A very large portion of things men do were for women and it pisses me off when history is painted as essentially a nonstop oppression of women, because that couldn't be further from the truth. Both men and women were subject to horrible evils, but because of our size men were better able to protect ourselves than women. Men have been getting attacked, raped and enslaved by other men since the dawn of time as well.
> ...



OKay, your post pissed me off so much, that I'm actually going to formidably debate it. I'm going to be going down a list, specifying exactly what is wrong with all the feces you just conjured up.

1. Women were left on the sidelines because the men thought they were much to weak to be of any use. That is not exactly a good thing.

2. So being enslaved, and possibly maltreated for the rest of your life sounds better to you than an honorable death in battle? Who are you to make that judgement again?

3. Most men weren't tyrants? You know this how? Oh yeah you don't. The only thing we have are the surviving regiments of old society, and old society makes it perfectly legal to mistreat your wife. Awhile a man slapping his wife around would not be considered a tyrant at that time, today he clearly would be.


4. The hallmark of success was how many slaves, land and wives you owned.

5. A very large proportion of things men did were to gain power. What do women have to do with any of that? If men really cared about women then they wouldn't have constructed laws which are biased against women. They wouldn't have created patriarchal societies that punish women for being women. Are those the great favors that men have done for women? To be treated like a couch without any primal citizenship rights, does that sound good to you?

6. Humans have always been trying to subdue one another. That is unquestionable, but don't walk in here trying to equate the plight of men to that of women. It is purely dishonest as women have been subjected to second-class citizenship for centuries. They have been nothing more than an animal you buy to multiply your seed. Men as an entirety have never been persecuted due to their gender as women have. Your ignorance is astounding and partly disgusting.

7. Slut shaming is but a construct men have created. Men have always restricted a women's sexuality while putting no restraints on their own. Centuries of that crap has brought us to where we are today where it is still going on. While men may not be the primary the enforcer anymore, they were definitely the manufactures. As far as feminism goes, it is still needed. You only need take one look at the middle east to realize this. Though of course, people like you with ignorance as dense as a supermassive black hole, would not understand this simple reasoning.

Honestly, I'm only 17 and yet, I am much more knowledgeable on women's rights than you. Don't come back till you pick up a history book.


----------



## Vermin (Nov 21, 2013)

this thread turned to shit real fast


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 21, 2013)

SubtleObscurantist said:


> For the record, repressed homosexuality and accompanying self loathing are .



No one was saying it was...


----------



## God (Nov 21, 2013)

im a man and i love sluts
why shame them? lol

in  all seriousness though, women hate other promiscuous women because they have some prude idea of how women should be and that sluts (or more accurately, attractive women) are somehow setting women back and all that bullshit

the article just confirms what everyone already knows
women get jealous of each other cuz of their own self-conscious attitudes and spite each other

gfto feminists


----------



## Mizura (Nov 21, 2013)

> Society in general was far more oppressive for everybody, not just women.


Uh-huh. 
- Because men were forced to wear veils and stay at home.
- Because men were stoned or burned for having multiple wives or having illegitimate lovers.
- Because women held as much political power as men.
- Because women had as much access to education as men.
Oh wait. (on the last one, even today, many University dorms in Paris don't have female dorms, a relic of a time when only men were allowed to attend such institutions)

- There are terrible women who harass women.
- There are terrible men who harass women.
- There are great women who are nice to everyone.
- There are great men who are nice to everyone, including women.
And I think that society should do more to celebrate the men who have fought for the rights of women and others rather than just portray all men as the enemy of women (a heinously idiotic portrayal: women wouldn't have gained those rights if it weren't for the support of men).

Equality isn't a zero-sum game, it isn't a "you lose I win" situation. As women gain rights, they must shoulder more responsibilities accordingly. And men can benefit from having more meaningful relationships than "the maid and baby-making machine my family chose for me", and as the woman takes on more responsibilities, they are allowed more opportunities to bond with their children in ways that used to be reserved for mothers (in theory anyway). I'm a proponent of granting more rights to fathers so that they will be able to enjoy the same rights as mothers. In China, companies are reluctant to hire women who risk becoming pregnant at their age and running off (whereas men are likely to work harder after they have children), but the Real solution to that is to give fathers just as many rights, and make sure they use them.

Plus, as a cruder example, there's sex. My father once noted an awkward conversation he had with his mother. My grandmother told him that she never enjoyed sex, not once. But you know, if the woman enjoyed it, wouldn't the male partner be enjoying it more too? That sort of thing. It's not a zero-sum game.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 21, 2013)

Normality said:


> 1. Women were left on the sidelines because the men thought they were much to weak to be of any use. That is not exactly a good thing.


Lol. You truthfully believe women would have been of any help whatsoever in the days of tribal combat, warfare? You're insane. Opinions like this is arise when you indiscriminately teach young children that men and women ARE EXACTLY THE SAME WITH NO DIFFERENCES!!! No. Men are biologically stronger than women. 



Normality said:


> 2. So being enslaved, and possibly maltreated for the rest of your life sounds better to you than an honorable death in battle? Who are you to make that judgement again?



An honorable death? More like dying like trash on some battlefield terrified, traumatized and possibly permanently disfigured fighting in a war you don't understand or have any say in.



Normality said:


> 3. Most men weren't tyrants? You know this how? Oh yeah you don't. The only thing we have are the surviving regiments of old society, and old society makes it perfectly legal to mistreat your wife. Awhile a man slapping his wife around would not be considered a tyrant at that time, today he clearly would be.



I stand by that. You believe that most men were? What would lead you down that belief system? Beliefs like this are also being promoted in todays world which is truly a shame. The portion of men that are sociopathic tyrannical monsters who freely assault/rape women are not the majority, and have never been. Keep in mind that these types of men also freely attack men/children. Never forget that the energy, competitiveness, and corporal daring of normal, decent males is responsible for a large portion of what is right in the world.



Normality said:


> 4. The hallmark of success was how many slaves, land and wives you owned.


You mean wealth? Yes, wealth is an indicator of success. That's what 'well off' implies. A very large majority of men use their wealth to take care of their families. That is seen as a traditional value.



Normality said:


> 5. A very large proportion of things men did were to gain power. What do women have to do with any of that? If men really cared about women then they wouldn't have constructed laws which are biased against women. They wouldn't have created patriarchal societies that punish women for being women. Are those the great favors that men have done for women? To be treated like a couch without any primal citizenship rights, does that sound good to you?
> .


And here your bias and prejudice is clear. Acting as if every man was oppressive to women, as if even in times of old men were not punished more severely and more often than women, as if women in power were not oppressive to men and women, and acting like men themselves were not oppressed by these same men who oppressed everybody. Plenty of men could not vote as well in the past and had no say. White male property owners could vote, nobody else.

One of feminism’s irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for “patriarchal society,” to which nothing good is ever attributed.


Normality said:


> 6. Humans have always been trying to subdue one another. That is unquestionable, but don't walk in here trying to equate the plight of men to that of women. It is purely dishonest as women have been subjected to second-class citizenship for centuries. They have been nothing more than an animal you buy to multiply your seed. Men as an entirety have never been persecuted due to their gender as women have. Your ignorance is astounding and partly disgusting.


Like I said before, white male property owners could vote, nobody else. Right now you're simply spouting off 3rd wave feminist rhetoric, with very little backing anything that you're saying.


Normality said:


> 7. Slut shaming is but a construct men have created. Men have always restricted a women's sexuality while putting no restraints on their own. Centuries of that crap has brought us to where we are today where it is still going on. While men may not be the primary the enforcer anymore, they were definitely the manufactures. As far as feminism goes, it is still needed. You only need take one look at the middle east to realize this. Though of course, people like you with ignorance as dense as a supermassive black hole, would not understand this simple reasoning.



Charming. Once again, men have _very_ little incentive to 'slut shame' as everyone says. The only women who men might try to shame out of promiscuity are wives/girlfriends which makes logical sense because historically men didn't want to raise another mans offspring, and maybe daughters/sisters, so that they don't get pregnant by a man with inadequate resources. 

I see next to no modern feminists doing anything productive to benefit women of other cultures. Most of what I see is a rigid movement of hypersensitive women who blame men for every problem in their lives. Whining about 'slut shaming' and 'fat shaming' two things that currently in western civilization carry absolutely zero consequences.


----------



## Nordstrom (Nov 21, 2013)

lelStables


Stop giving me reasons to hate women! I already lost count!


----------



## Zaru (Nov 21, 2013)

Normality said:


> Women were left on the sidelines because the men thought they were much to weak to be of any use. That is not exactly a good thing.


Women were on the "sidelines" (nevermind that you just ignored the majority of human civilization consisting of agriculture, and before that hunting/gathering, where both sexes worked to their best, and farm/household work being extremely time consuming before modern inventions) because they had to be put there for society to continue existing. Do I need to explain the female womb bottleneck for populations to you? It's the basis for pretty much all male/female social constructs.

It's kinda funny because most first world countries are empirical evidence for the conclusion that giving women more equal rights and opportunities dooms those societies to self-destruction. Sub-replacement level birthrates across the board. Getting replaced by populations that treat women more as wombs.

Note: I'm not making a claim about who had it worse. But you're mistaking protectionism for disdain.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 21, 2013)

> It's kinda funny because most first world countries are empirical evidence for the conclusion that giving women more equal rights and opportunities dooms those societies to self-destruction.



A detect a slight twinge of resentment. 

More than anything though I'd say that claim is utter shit. I'm not sure what's going on over there, but despite natural-born citizens having a lower birth rate than immigrant families something like what you're claiming isn't really an active concern in North America...


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 21, 2013)

Bitches be crazy, more at 11


----------



## Naiki (Nov 21, 2013)

Wow, this thing is still going strong, eh?


----------



## Blunt (Nov 21, 2013)

MbS said:


> Just as bad? Well, no. You see not all women are sluts, but almost all misogynists are men.


I never said most misogynists weren't men. 

I said saying all men are misogynists is just as bad as saying all women are sluts. Both are severely inaccurate generalizations. Your inversion of the phrasing completely changes the meaning into something I wasn't talking about at all.


----------



## Daxter (Nov 21, 2013)

Marty McFly, omg. 

I'll let the others field this, because it's literally so backwards I'm calling troll, and I don't waste time arguing with trolls. *See Mizura's post again for another asskicking.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 21, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> A detect a slight twinge of resentment.
> 
> More than anything though I'd say that claim is utter shit. I'm not sure what's going on over there, but despite natural-born citizens having a lower birth rate than immigrant families something like what you're claiming isn't really an active concern in North America...


I know you wildly touch yourself at night to the thought of attributing some kind of bigotry to me, but I'll have to disappoint you. I have no interest in denying women their freedom. 

And it's not an "active concern" because we're not pre-modernity tribal societies fighting for survival anymore. Doesn't change the fact that a distinguishable population group with a notably sub-replacement birthrate will eventually almost cease to exist, given enough time.
And if all population groups were continuously at the birthrate level of first world countries, humanity as a whole would end up nearly extinct sooner or later. No idea why you're arguing against facts, or better put, the very DEFINITION of "sub-replacement birthrate".

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Blue (Nov 21, 2013)

I, for one, welcome our new tiny birthrate overlords.

When I'm living forever I don't need the unlimited baby works getting in the way of my adventure.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 21, 2013)

mfw they will invent immortality the week after Blue dies


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 21, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I know you wildly touch yourself at night to the thought of attributing some kind of bigotry to me, but I'll have to disappoint you. I have no interest in denying women their freedom.



I don't have to do that, you attribute that to yourself just fine.



> And it's not an "active concern" because we're not pre-modernity tribal societies fighting for survival anymore. Doesn't change the fact that a distinguishable population group with a notably sub-replacement birthrate will eventually almost cease to exist, given enough time.



Eh. So? Other groups will, have, and can replace the ones that die out.



> And if all population groups were continuously at the birthrate level of first world countries, humanity as a whole would end up nearly extinct sooner or later. No idea why you're arguing against facts, or better put, the very DEFINITION of "sub-replacement birthrate".



You seem more concerned about the native born or natural-born population than anything else though. Immigrant populations have and continue to have higher birthrates than the former, at least as far as the west goes. If we ever reach your supposed apocalyptic scenario then you'll have to consider what trends also come with increased/decreased birthrate and that is longevity. First-world countries have far higher life expectancies than those with higher birthrates, the uncertainty of survival regarding one's progeny isn't as immediate a concern and that we have moved away from agrarian, self-sustenance lifestyles so having more children is more of a burden. So people have less children, others none at all which allow them to look to other pursuits.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 21, 2013)

Let's go back a step for perspective.

I was talking about why men in the past did what they do and what the end result would be if the results of equality was applied to all of humanity.

Now you come in here, dedicating your time to trying to make this about what you THINK that I am "concerned" with, completely unrelated to the thread and completely irrelevant to anything going on here. 

You're just addicted to starting shitstorms, aren't you Seto?

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 21, 2013)

And I'm telling you that take is flawed, because the factors you seem so concerned over often have a relationship with the ones I brought up. So if you have a lower birthrate worldwide, then it is often due to a decreased need to have more children because people live longer and in societies that can sustain citizens for that long having more children would only be a burden. You said that giving women equal rights here had doomed us to self-destruction, not only that you stated that there was empirical evidence to indicate as such, which *is* a load of crap. Our population is being replaced, it's just not to as many natural-born citizens as before.

You always bitch about people taking you the wrong way when you make your stance pretty damn clear. I wasn't trying to start a shitstorm with you, but you know I don't have a problem with it if that's the road you wanna go down. If you didn't say such shit, people would never associate it with you.

Reactions: Sad! 1


----------



## Incognito (Nov 21, 2013)

Ethnic/population displacement/decline won't be the only denouement of the problem of the birth rate patterns that plague the modern world. The people with the lowest birth rates also happen to be the reason why the world progresses in the first place: there is a consistent and clear negative correlation between genotypic intelligence (IQ) and fertility. And the continued migration of women into the workforce no doubt plays a role in the dysgenic decline of the developed worlds intelligence as it is the most intelligent women who go on to have successful, high end - competitive careers and end up with the lowest birth rates.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Nov 21, 2013)

sluts are disgusting.


----------



## HolyHands (Nov 21, 2013)

Keep in mind that the hispanic birth rate is actually falling in the US, and it is highly attributed towards greater education. The doomsday scenario of being overrun by third world minorities isn't really going to be the case as long as they are well educated. The world is getting more brown, but that's hardly an issue as long as people are raised right.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 21, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And I'm telling you that take is flawed, because the factors you seem so concerned over often have a relationship with the ones I brought up. So if you have a lower birthrate worldwide, then it is often due to a decreased need to have more children because people live longer and in societies that can sustain citizens for that long having more children would only be a burden. You said that giving women equal rights here had doomed us to self-destruction, not only that you stated that there was empirical evidence to indicate as such, which *is* a load of crap. Our population is being replaced, it's just not to as many natural-born citizens as before.
> 
> You always bitch about people taking you the wrong way when you make your stance pretty damn clear. I wasn't trying to start a shitstorm with you, but you know I don't have a problem with it if that's the road you wanna go down. If you didn't say such shit, people would never associate it with you.



If you were any more dense, this thread would disappear into a black hole.

The empirical evidence (as in, evidence by observation) is that women of the population groups that treat them more equally are having too few children to sustain those populations. This happens all across most of the native populations of the first world. It's a fact. They shrink. More education, more opportunity, more equality, almost universally decreases birthrates and increases the age of first childbirth. Low education and poverty are positive factors for fertility rate, but we're in the process of decreasing both.
People spend more time being old, aka way less productive. Is that supposed to help in any way?

Your "solution" is getting replaced by populations with higher birthrates. Guess what they mostly have in common? Less equal treatment of women, and more "traditional" gender roles.
It proves exactly what I said: Such populations will cease to exist, since the ones who produce more births will replace them. And if those populations then normalize to the same standard, they will cease to exist as well. Equality is not sustainable until we make childbirth a state matter or heavily incentivize it (which would be a paradigm shift proving the unsustainability)

How naive are you that you think educated people focussed on jobs and worldly pleasures will magically pick up the slack and have more children because "more births are needed"? Funny how that is working out in the countries who already have declining populations. (Hint: It's not)
Everything you just claimed is plain and simply wrong and does not hold up against what is happening in the world. 
I've got no personal stake in this matter because I'll be long dead before it happens, so suck your conjecture and choke on it.


And that's quite funny coming from someone who straight out lied about what my stance is multiple times.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Takahashi (Nov 21, 2013)

Normality said:


> 1. Women were left on the sidelines because the men thought they were much to weak to be of any use. That is not exactly a good thing.



We're a sexually dimorphic species.  Men are vastly superior to women in terms of physical strength, particularly in the upper body.  Obviously you'd run with whoever has the bigger muscles in a fight, no?



> 2. So being enslaved, and possibly maltreated for the rest of your life sounds better to you than an honorable death in battle? Who are you to make that judgement again?



Isn't this more an example of both genders getting seriously screwed over during times of war than it is a contest of who has it worse?



> 5. A very large proportion of things men did were to gain power. What do women have to do with any of that? If men really cared about women *then they wouldn't have constructed laws which are biased against women.**They wouldn't have created patriarchal societies that punish women for being women.* Are those the great favors that men have done for women? To be treated like a couch without any primal citizenship rights, does that sound good to you?



Well, they created a society that punished anyone for going against what they were supposed to do as a man or a woman.  Yeah, women certainly got the less powerful deal, but men were still held to standards that were highly restrictive.  Not to say that they're equal, but the notion that only women were held down by society is simply wrong, and still is.

I'm confused by the "if men really cared about women" part though.  That doesn't show that they didn't care for/love women.  If you believe that women are inferior (as they did), then you'd obviously treat them as something inferior.  People love their dogs like a human family member, yet they're still fitted with leashes, proof of ownership, and strict rules that you'd never apply to a human.  Does that invalidate the emotions they feel?

I really can't help but feel that this is far more than just a discussion of history.  I think you're holding too much animosity for a past you haven't experienced, and ignore the context of a very different set of beliefs.  You're holding these men to the standards of today, so you need to attribute some kind of monstrous image to make things consistent with their actions.  There's no doubt that in the future, some of the things we do today will be considered abhorrent, yet to place us in a different society and apply those standards would be unfair.



> 7. Slut shaming is but a construct men have created. Men have always restricted a women's sexuality while putting no restraints on their own. Centuries of that crap has brought us to where we are today where it is still going on. While men may not be the primary the enforcer anymore, they were definitely the manufactures.



I hope you're not trying to suggest that every time a woman calls another woman a slut, it's a man's fault.  That kind of false victimization really irritates me.



> As far as feminism goes, it is still needed.* You only need take one look at the middle east to realize this*. Though of course, people like you with ignorance as dense as a supermassive black hole, would not understand this simple reasoning.



If you only need to take a look around the world to recognize what rights groups are important, then it's evident that *humanism* is still needed.  Not a group that only cares about one side and ignores or rejects the other.


----------



## Black Superman (Nov 21, 2013)

I for one can't wait for the day when women have complete control of this ship. The crown is not for lightweights.  It seems like the more power women have the more they complain, I'm convinced this is one big shit test to see whether or not men will cave.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 21, 2013)

Zaru said:


> If you were any more dense, this thread would disappear into a black hole.



Sorry if the end to a white majority doesn't instill fear in me.



> The empirical evidence (as in, evidence by observation) is that women of the population groups that treat them more equally are having too few children to sustain those populations.



But the areas that have a progressive stance on women's rights tend to be western nations and Japan, and among these nations it is the birth rate among natural-born citizens that fall, with children born to immigrant families filling the gaps.



> This happens all across most of the native populations of the first world. It's a fact. They shrink. More education, more opportunity, more equality, almost universally decreases birthrates and increases the age of first childbirth.



Those people live longer, and society changes that the need to have more children diminishes. At least among the populations established in the area. Like I stated, having more children in such an environment becomes a burden, as you can see with the Baby Boomer generation and the number retiring in the U.S.



> Low education and poverty are positive factors for fertility rate, but we're in the process of decreasing both.



Those groups tend to have higher mortality rates, and tend to have lower life expectancies and live very different lifestyles than the groups that tend to see a declining birth rate. 



> People spend more time being old, aka way less productive. Is that supposed to help in any way?



If that is your concern that upping retirement age would be one possible fix to that issue. Other than that, medicine and technology continues to enable people to be more useful to their society for a longer duration of their lives. People aren't dropping dead at 40-50 like they used to. 



> Your "solution" is getting replaced by populations with higher birthrates. Guess what they mostly have in common? Less equal treatment of women, and more "traditional" gender roles.



Like I said, that may be the problem over where you are but the immigrant populations here tend to assimilate pretty well into the general culture. The children more or less carry on the culture the same way natural-born citizens do, with their own cultural roots but that's essentially what makes American culture.



> It proves exactly what I said: Such populations will cease to exist, since the ones who produce more births will replace them. And if those populations then normalize to the same standard, they will cease to exist as well. Equality is not sustainable until we make childbirth a state matter or heavily incentivize it (which would be a paradigm shift proving the unsustainability)



You are starting to sound like a nutcase right now. 



> How naive are you that you think educated people focussed on jobs and worldly pleasures will magically pick up the slack and have more children because "more births are needed"?



But I don't.



> Funny how that is working out in the countries who already have declining populations. (Hint: It's not)



Well, this is pointless because I don't know how you got that former assumption. What I did state however, which isn't a concern of mine because more brown doesn't throw me on the defense, is that immigrant populations tend to have more children where natural-born populations do not.



> Everything you just claimed is plain and simply wrong and does not hold up against what is happening in the world.
> I've got no personal stake in this matter because I'll be long dead before it happens, so suck your conjecture and choke on it.



For someone that goes on about political correctness all the time, you're very sensitive. Not to mention you completely went off the mark here. 



> And that's quite funny coming from someone who straight out lied about what my stance is multiple times.



I didn't. You say racist shit all the time, so naturally people think you're racist. You said something incredibly sexist, so naturally people are going to look at you as one. You always insist that you are not one thing, but then the shit you spew proves the contrary.


----------



## Chloe (Nov 21, 2013)

Let's be real, of course people were going to talk shit about the one that's dressed skimpier. They were at uni for fucks sake.
There is a time and a place for certain outfits.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 22, 2013)

Takahashi said:


> We're a sexually dimorphic species.  Men are vastly superior to women in terms of physical strength, particularly in the upper body.  Obviously you'd run with whoever has the bigger muscles in a fight, no?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Do archers require much physical strength? No, so why weren't women allowed to do jobs like that? 

2. War is fucked up period. I get you there.

3. I never said that only women were held down. That is not what I said so why is it that you are bringing that point up? It's a fallacious way to debate.

4. I personally feel that if you really love something, you do not degrade it. Would you treat someone you really love as an inferior being? No, you would not because that is tyranny not love. Many men back then did treat their women fairly because they actually loved them. You can't love someone, and then think it is perfectly okay to think of them in such a degrading way. As far as pets go, people who actually love their pets tend to think of them as a valuable entity of the family. They don't get mistreated or made to feel inferior. 

5. I'm not allowed to hold men to a decent standard? Umm just because you lived just a while ago doesn't mean that you get a pass. I understand that in the society they lived in it was okay to mistreat women, but that doesn't make their actions okay. Back then it was also okay to marry young girls. Does that mean I need to dismiss that as well? You don't get a pass for ill behavior just because you happen to live in a different time. This thing of not judging pass humans based on modern standards is an excuse apologists use. 

6. I'm not solely putting the blame on men for slut-shaming. I simply pointed out that they were the creators,which is true. Today it is a mixture of both men and women perpetuating it.

7. Just because you support one group does not make you incapable of supporting another. I can be feminist and still be a "humanist". The title feminist isn't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Random Stranger (Nov 22, 2013)

Normality said:


> 1. Do archers require much physical strength? No, so why weren't women allowed to do jobs like that?


Bro, I think you either watch too much fiction or you are very ignorant about the type of bows used in medieval warfare.

Medieval war bows required a TON of strength to draw, archers were usually trained since childhood so that they would have the strength and skill to be able to draw these war bows.

For comparison modern day bows usually range in the 35-60 lbs draw weight , medieval warbows had draw weights of well over 100 lbs. Most women wouldn?t be able to draw those bows.


----------



## Shiorin (Nov 22, 2013)

I'm all for feminism but modern media does two very annoying things. 

The first is that they blindly parrot the exaggerated pay gap of 77 cents to 1 dollar, which has been disproven, most recently by a  that pegs it to a much more modest gap. Unfortunately this only fuels radical feminism against male white collar workers, in whose workplaces the pay gap is actually almost nonexistent. 

The second is that two generations of affirmative action have statistically skewed many college admittance and job hiring rates towards women, but this trend is often reported as insufficient at a time when the pace of our high tech economy can ill afford any potential engineer or scientist who is denied an opportunity down that path - man or woman. There should not be any barriers to women entering higher education and white collar jobs, but neither should we shy from a meritocratic system.


----------



## Takahashi (Nov 22, 2013)

Normality said:


> 1. Do archers require much physical strength? No, so why weren't women allowed to do jobs like that?



I cannot confirm if what was said in response to you from Random is true, but anyway...

But really now, are we just going down the list of things women may be able to do, and then complain that they couldn't?  

Women can play Basketball too, how many are going to make it on an NBA team?  It'd be absolutely mind-blowing to see even one.  If you're going into anything centric to physical strength, you're better off using men in the *vast* majority of situations.  You may not like it, but it's true.




> 3. I never said that only women were held down. That is not what I said *so why is it that you are bringing that point up*? It's a fallacious way to debate.



Your post heavily implies that there existed only a bias against women, something you reiterate twice over, which is inaccurate and worth pointing out.  Granted, you were responding to someone else, but given that you neglected to multiquote (and still do) it's tough to gauge the complete context here.



> 4. I personally feel that if you really love something, you do not degrade it. Would you treat someone you really love as an inferior being? No, you would not because that is tyranny not love.



Uhh, I *just* gave an example of something inferior that people treat like any other member of the family.  Everyone loves their dog, but do they actually consider it equal with a human?  To the point that your dog and *insert loved one here* are interchangeable?  Of course not.



> Many men back then did treat their women fairly because they actually loved them. You can't love someone, and then think it is perfectly okay to think of them in such a degrading way. As far as pets go, people who actually love their pets tend to think of them as a valuable entity of the family. *They don't get mistreated or made to feel inferior.*



Again, I just gave an example of how they are treated as inferior.  We *own* pets, we keep them confined with us, if they run away we go and bring them back etc.  There's some pretty obvious parallels to be drawn here. Yet we still love them.

As I said, I think you're simply attempting to demonize the men of that time by attributing something like having no love to justify your contempt.  I think it's misguided and a decision born from an emotional response rather than rational thought.



> 5. I'm not allowed to hold men to a decent standard?



No, I said you shouldn't hold people to a *current* standard of which they were never acquainted.



> Umm just because you lived just a while ago doesn't mean that you get a pass. I understand that in the society they lived in it was okay to mistreat women, *but that doesn't make their actions okay.*



Being on the Expressivist/Error Theory side, I'd disagree.  But whatever, argue the morality of it all you want; however, as I said previously, your vitriol is indicative of someone who isn't so much arguing against a specific set of beliefs, but against the men themselves.  Cultures rise, fall, and change for various reasons, but we are all products of our culture.  You and I believe what we do because of the time and (approximate) place we live in.  Had we been born in a very different situation, we'd probably believe the same things.

Hell, we were just talking about pets, suppose a PETA-like attitude wins in a few hundred years.  Pets no longer exist, and the mere notion of having one is sickening.  Are we all horrible people for having pets?  Should we be judged as individuals without the capacity to care, or as a broad culture that we have now deemed as off-base?



> You don't get a pass for ill behavior just because you happen to live in a different time. *This thing of not judging pass humans based on modern standards is an excuse apologists use*.



No, it's a sensible way of thinking.  It's understanding that we, the people of the present, are not on some fantastical, enlightened high ground where we judge the people who came before us like some kind of moral arbiter.  Because given enough time, we'll be in the same boat.  See above ^



> 6. I'm not solely putting the blame on men for slut-shaming. I simply pointed out that they were the creators,which is true. Today it is a mixture of both men and women perpetuating it.



I can't recall the last time I heard a guy call a girl a slut, to be honest.  It's most certainly a primary female to female insult in this society.  But good, just wanted to clarify.



> 7. Just because you support one group does not make you incapable of supporting another. I can be feminist and still be a "humanist". The title feminist isn't mutually exclusive.



It isn't, but it's inherently oppositional.  All rights groups that are centric to a particular population, naturally, have the primary focus of themselves.  It's the job of anyone working for one of these groups to convince you that they're a victim.  Recognizing the other side is simply counterproductive, and it's so transparently disingenuous.

But it does still come down to your comment.  There is no group completely free from any bias, so if you simply have to "look around" to recognize the need of a group to exist, then logically it would be the one that's all-encompassing.


----------



## EJ (Nov 22, 2013)

I believe Feminism is still needed. But the ones that hate people for having a dick between their legs need to fuck off.



> No, I said you shouldn't hold people to a current standard of which they were never acquainted.




Yeah, shut up.


----------



## Random Stranger (Nov 22, 2013)

Takahashi said:


> I cannot confirm if what was said in response to you from Random is true, but anyway...


Read  and tell me archery used in medieval warfare doesn't require a tremendous amount of physical strength 


Fun fact: Archaeologists could tell which medieval skeletons belonged to archers because they had twisted spines from years of massive pulling


----------



## Ulti (Nov 22, 2013)

Chloe said:


> Top lel.
> 
> This current wave of feminism is largely not needed in most developed nations.
> In places in the middle east where women do actually have large restrictions on their lives (not being allowed to drive is one thing that comes to mind), yeah there needs to be change.
> ...



Not only that but to be honest, some of the worst misogyny I have ever seen has actually been perpetrated by feminists. Just look at the vitriol a woman receives if she says she isn't a feminist. Her argument is dismissed because she is... a woman and doesn't know shit about her oppression apparently. In extreme cases I've seen someone say "If you got raped you'd appreciate feminism more".

- They don't seem to actually care about rape, just listing shit for the sake of it. The 1 in 4 campus myth, the inaccurate infograph about how little rapists go to jail. They don't actually do anything to stop it, they just incite fear within women. now that is 'rape culture'
- They ignore female on female rape
- Trivialize rape, a man staring at you, flirting with you, masturbation, watching porn, consensual bdsm or accidentally brushing past you can be considered rape by them. Radfems go as far as saying all heterosexual intercourse is rape. this insults actual rape victims. This seems to be confined to Tumblr though.
- They treat women like victimised children who can't take responsibility for themselves, reinforcing 'patriarchal' stereotypes in a debate with a feminist I said "if she says yes, that's consent" her reply? "if a toddler says yes is that consent?" among other insane replies like "women aren't strong enough to give consent" which defeats the objective of feminism
- A woman should have free choice, as long as it is something feminists like, otherwise god help them
- A woman can dress like a slut, but as proven by the recent halloween shit, wear a slutty costume and you're giving in to da patriarceh!

other problems unrelated to that would be

- homophobia "homosexuality is the manifestation of misogyny!" cause you don't want to bang woman or something
- treat trans people like shit, FtM? gender traitor! MtF? Not a real woman and you just want to rape women in the toilets. Luckily this and the above also seem to be confined to dumblr... I hope.
- Cases of racism, the whole #Solidarityisforwhitewomen on twitter.

I get that not all feminists are like this, but they are the most prominent and given most room to talk. It's mainly the middle class white feminists at fault, Caitlin Moran who has flat out said she doesn't care about WoC iirc, Laurie Penny who refused to show gratitude to Ryan Gosling after he saved her from being hit by a speeding car... just because he was a man. CCP who has the worlds biggest victim complex, her 'feminism' is thinly veiled man hating, when called out she claims she is the victim then blocks anyone who disagrees with her.

With that said, I am friends with feminists who don't take part in the above but even they piss me off sometimes by saying "if you're against feminism you're against equality!" or "Think men and women should be equal? You're a feminist!" I don't appreciate having a superficial label and monopoly forced upon me, especially one that has a radical history like so.


----------



## Takahashi (Nov 22, 2013)

Edit:

Whoops, I misread the modern longbow section as the medieval one 

Disregard my previous statement, Random (If you even saw it).

Anyway, seems like a valid point as far as I can tell


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 22, 2013)

LOL funny cartoon.


----------



## Blue (Nov 22, 2013)

First four panels of that is literally everyone on tumblr

What happens in the fifth varies wildly


----------



## Incognito (Nov 22, 2013)

Interesting how people here, especially the feminists, and possibly also the author of this article (judging by the title and the language) misunderstood the evolutionary psychologist and sociobiologist referenced (Sarah Hrdy): what you call "slut shaming", in other words female promiscuity being a taboo, is probably a phenomena that has relevance to behavioural biology, which is hardly a surprise since it is the norm in most human societies (whether it be the liberal western world or the fanatic Islamic world, the difference is only in degree) and hence what evolutionary psychologists call a "cultural universal". The scientist referenced does not disagree with this fact, she merely believes competition between females has something to do with it. In other words, the feminist conspiracy theory of the patriarchy is neither here nor there.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Nov 22, 2013)

Oh goodness, I can't deal. I don't have enough strength reiterate points again and again. Although, good reply(generally)Take and Random. Although, I disagree with you Taka almost 100%.


----------



## Blue (Nov 22, 2013)

Slut shaming is a misandrist phenomenon anyway. Only people who have sex with men are labelled sluts. Straight men - and lesbians - are not.

The implication, of course, is that having sex with many men is disgusting but having sex with many women is impressive. Feminists took that and ran the wrong way with it.


----------



## Ulti (Nov 22, 2013)

> Talk about trivialisation of rape.



Yuuuppppp



Some of the "I need feminism" posts are the stupidest shit I've ever seen.



> Not to mention according to mainstream feminism men cannot be raped by females because women can't have power over men and boner=consent.



This also pisses me off to no end, if you'll give me a moment... 



The table shows that forced penetration and forced to penetrate was near equal among men and women in 2010 within the US... Yet one is considered rape and the other filed under 'sexual violence', 3 guesses as to which and the first two don't count. Just look at appendix C.



the double standard disgusts me. shit, here in the UK, a woman is actually _immune_ to rape accusations, thanks to feminists. the very definition of rape is skewed

Here is where I got the tables from above, if anyone is interested



oh, and before some fucker tries pulling the lifetime shit on me


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 22, 2013)

Hunteri Heroci said:


> Yuuuppppp
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the "I need feminism" posts are the stupidest shit I've ever seen.



Holy shit.... 

I knew it had gotten bad, but not nearly that bad.  After an Internet search I found another pretty disturbing one: 

For all my brothas out there, run, don't walk away in the other direction if you see these white girls on the street. These girls are felonies waiting to happen.


----------



## BiNexus (Nov 22, 2013)

I feel that Feminism has a plethora of valid points, that, we as a collective society, would benefit to address. Post-modernists raise valid points; that history has been dominated and thus recorded by, predominantly by males; that certain positions (here I speak mostly of intellectual and political fields or areas, but an argument can be made for others) have been filled by males and have alienated women; women being kept solely in the private sector while men work in the public sector (the home vs. the workplace) etc. Many of these things have been and continue to be addressed today.

I, as a male, support the proposition that women (all women; not just women in western cultures mind you--I'll come back to this later) should be given the tools and the opportunity to be viewed as equal and receive equal treatment to men, _*excluding such cases where our biology does not allow for it, such as tasks that require a certain amount of strength.*_

However, what troubles me about some feminists today (and _not_ *Feminism*) is that their "goal", which is ostensibly a push for equality, is actually putting women on top, for the 'centuries and millennia they have been oppressed.' Unfortunately these feminists can't be classified as a vocal minority that crops up on tumblr and social media; no, many "new" feminists are cropping up, galvanized by this outcry to "demolish" the patriarchy. This hard-line and excited rhetoric pulls people in; because it's so polarized and poignant and, unfortunately, riddled with *guilt.* 

"Oh, you don't support feminists? Well, you MUST hate women. What about your mother? How can you live in a world where she's being oppressed by a system that is designed to favour you while she is left by the wayside?" 

I've heard so much of it, and it was startling at first, but I realised that *that* is how they got so many people. You don't want to say no; you don't want to be seen as a "woman-hater" by the people you're talking to. So you brush it off and you say yes, and go with it. 

Going further on the concept of equality; bringing up the concept of men's rights is almost inherently taboo to some feminists. I've heard that "men have had their rights for hundreds of years now; it's time for women to have theirs." ...which is fine, however it seems to come at the price of men's rights.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0[/YOUTUBE]

Those two videos are showing a protest to a men's rights talk at one of our universities in Toronto. The Feminist group of the campus blocked the sole entrance to the auditorium and pulled the fire alarm in an effort to cancel the talk. This particular group equates advocating men's rights as hate speech. Simply ironic as they are the oppressors advocating for equality. 

Another thing is that some feminists are so out of touch with women all around the world. I've seen some commercials where it says "The one who can understand the plight of women in a developing country, is a woman from any part of the world." That's just...wrong. It's so wrong. Many people in developed countries cannot fathom what goes on on a daily basis in another part of the world. Many brush it off because it is out of sight and out of mind, while mindlessly plugging away at the myriad of things in the west that are "perpetuated by patriarchy".


----------



## Ulti (Nov 22, 2013)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Holy shit....
> 
> I knew it had gotten bad, but not nearly that bad.  After an Internet search I found another pretty disturbing one:
> 
> For all my brothas out there, run, don't walk away in the other direction if you see these white girls on the street. These girls are felonies waiting to happen.





Chloe said:


> Not as good as these





There is even one where someone indoctrinated their toddler

@BiNexus I can get on board with that.


----------



## sworder (Nov 22, 2013)

Hunteri Heroci said:


> There is even one where someone indoctrinated their toddler
> 
> @BiNexus I can get on board with that.



No one can be this dumb

I think she's just mocking the other feminists... right guys??


----------



## Incognito (Nov 22, 2013)

BiNexus said:


> I feel that Feminism has a plethora of valid points, that, we as a collective society, would benefit to address. Post-modernists raise valid points; that history has been dominated and thus recorded by, predominantly by males; that certain positions (here I speak mostly of intellectual and political fields or areas, but an argument can be made for others) have been filled by males and have alienated women; women being kept solely in the private sector while men work in the public sector (the home vs. the workplace) etc. Many of these things have been and continue to be addressed today.
> 
> I, as a male, support the proposition that women (all women; not just women in western cultures mind you--I'll come back to this later) should be given the tools and the opportunity to be viewed as equal and receive equal treatment to men, _*excluding such cases where our biology does not allow for it, such as tasks that require a certain amount of strength.*_




The problem is that modern feminism assumes equality of opportunity will inescapably entail equality of outcome: e.g. if men and women truly have equality of opportunity in academia then it follows that there necessarily must be an equal number of male and female Physics professors. This is not the case and there is still not categorical equality of outcome in the west and feminism tends to ascribe this to "oppression", patriarchy blah blah. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for this position, on the contrary, the emerging view of behavioral biology (evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, evolutionary anthropology etc) is that human beings evolved as a species with what you might call "gender roles" in our ancestral environment and this has had consequences (Ill get to it in a moment). What people seem to have a hard time understanding is that the modern world is an insignificant epoch as far as the evolution of man is concerned.

Because humans evolved as a species with gender roles -males generally played the role of the hunter / gatherer (i.e. the resource collector) whereas women the role of tending to the offspring, as well as sexual differences in mating strategies (e.g. males are more polygamous); as populations, men and women have evolved differences in cognitive traits, as well (on average). For example, the main theme in this article is that of competition, while it (implicitly) talks about competition for mates, it does not talk about competition for resources. Since males evolved as the primary resource collectors, attention to status (a capacity for resources) is more important in female mate selection strategies than in male strategies: this is why women, on average, are significantly more concerned about their partners salary than the reverse. This has consequences for employment because it means males as a population will be more successful in highly competitive fields like academia and the financial sector as they will, on average, be more psychologically prone to aggregating their status (e.g. salary) whereas women will be, on average, more complacent.

Tl;dr modern feminism is a fallacy of begging the question, I will only take it seriously when the day comes that the scientific view is that there is absolutely no difference, which includes psychological and cognitive differences, between the genders whatsoever. That day will not come because such a position is contrary to the most rudimentary ideas of behavioral biology.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 22, 2013)

I think there is a fundamental fallacy that "males" have been dominate throughout history. 

Ask a black man in the southern united states in 1850 how much power he had over a white woman?

Or how much power did a male from the Indian untouchables class have over a woman from the ruler class. 

The fact that the rulers were males does not mean that the entire sex has been dominate. The VAST majority of men were just as oppressed and shit on as majority of women throughout history. 

The ruling men didn't mold society to benefit men over women, they molded society to benefit themselves over everyone. There were as many laws against race, religion, heritage, class, nationality, land ownership, money, etc as there was against gender. 

and focusing ON gender as a singular is wrong factor.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 22, 2013)

hm. I find that to be an incredibly dishonest assessment. While income level, race, and occupation often influenced one's standing in society, you'd find that within each of the cultures of the classes of these societies that men had, and it was expected, they have a more authoritative role while women have more of a subservient role. A universal characteristic that existed between different classes.

So while a rich woman would be above a poor man in society she was still considered beneath a rich man, and a poor man was all the same above a poor woman.


----------



## Blue (Nov 22, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> Ask a black man in the southern united states in 1850 how much power he had over a white woman?



Fast forward 15 years and he could vote, while she'd have to wait another 50 years.

I don't think there's any doubt society was patriarchal in the distant past, but widespread and/or institutionalized discrimination was well on its way out 40 years ago and is nonexistent today.

My mom went to medical school in the 1960s-70s, and the harshest discrimination she suffered was from her own mother who paid for her 3 brothers to go to college, but told mom if she wanted to go to college she'd better get to work.

She did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Fast forward 15 years and he could vote, while she'd have to wait another 50 years.



Are you even aware of the numerous obstacles that were intentionally put in place to prevent blacks from voting in the South at least? While on paper they had that right, it was pretty much pointless considering the lack of protections of that right regarding black citizens. So while legally women in general gained the right vote later on, when it came to white women at least, the hurdle in exercising that right did not quite have the same momentum compared to black voters in general.



> I don't think there's any doubt society was patriarchal in the distant past, but widespread and/or institutionalized discrimination was well on its way out 40 years ago and is nonexistent today.



No, it's still there, it's just the factors behind it have changed for the most part. It's not so much about gender and race as it used to be, although such factors are still present of course.



> My mom went to medical school in the 1960s-70s, and the harshest discrimination she suffered was from her own mother who paid for her 3 brothers to go to college, but told mom if she wanted to go to college she'd better get to work.
> 
> She did.



Of men and women alike, most notably in oppressively patriarchal societies like those in the Islamic world you will see attitudes like that. That is the desired outcome oftentimes, to indoctrinate all to agree to their supposed place in society, even if it may not be of the greatest benefit to themselves or their group.


----------



## spaZ (Nov 22, 2013)

Don't fuck over 40 guys and you won't be called a slut that easy.


----------



## KFC (Nov 23, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> I think there is a fundamental fallacy that "males" have been dominate throughout history.
> 
> Ask a black man in the southern united states in 1850 how much power he had over a white woman?
> 
> ...



Well, the study of gender inequalities is based on the premise generally of them being in the same social class. Yes, social class systems DO greatly affect the general power that men and women hold over each other, like you said. However, within those same class systems, it is typically known that men hold direct or indirect power over women.
Now, I think it might be safe to say that most scholarship about this kind of thing takes a viewpoint from a western European/American view, and doesn't focus much on other regions of the world.

And, I think it's definitely okay to say that there are a lot of bat-shit crazy radical feminists. One of my professors knows a woman who considers all sex between a man and a woman to be rape. However, I don't think it's okay to make broad assumptions about all feminist scholars based on these shitty youtube videos and idiot undergrad's who can't spell.


----------



## EJ (Nov 23, 2013)

It's like Blue copies/paste a standard ignorant comment off of youtube, and uses it as an outline for many of the 'points he makes'.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 23, 2013)

What happened to all the feminists on NF? There used to be a lot more feminist warriors here. This thread turned out surprisingly one-sided.



MartyMcFly1 said:


> These girls are felonies waiting to happen.



What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little rape apologist? I?ll have you know I graduated top of my class in Women's Studies 101, I?ve been involved in numerous secret raids on MRA forums, and I have over 300 confirmed instances of telling people to "check your privilege". I am trained in being excessively offended and I?m the top SRSer in the entire social justice blogosphere. You are nothing to me but just another misogynist. I will call you a neckbeard with persistence the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, cis-sexist pig. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of differently-abled, ethnic, transqueer womyn across the USA* and your IP* is being traced right now so you better prepare for the AC360 investigation, *aggot. The investigation that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your erotic subreddit. You?re fucking privileged, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can complain about you in over seven hundred ways, and that?s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in arguing with shitlords, but I have access to the entire arsenal of Jezebel.com and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your privileged bigotry off the face of the solar system, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little ?sexist? comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn?t, you didn?t, and now you?re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will passive-aggressively type fury all over you and you will drown in it. You?re fucking dead, cis scum.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## horsdhaleine (Nov 23, 2013)

Shiorin said:


> I'm all for feminism but modern media does two very annoying things.
> 
> The first is that they blindly parrot the exaggerated pay gap of 77 cents to 1 dollar, which has been disproven, most recently by a  that pegs it to a much more modest gap. Unfortunately this only fuels radical feminism against male white collar workers, in whose workplaces the pay gap is actually almost nonexistent.
> 
> The second is that two generations of affirmative action have statistically skewed many college admittance and job hiring rates towards women, but this trend is often reported as insufficient at a time when the pace of our high tech economy can ill afford any potential engineer or scientist who is denied an opportunity down that path - man or woman. There should not be any barriers to women entering higher education and white collar jobs, but neither should we shy from a meritocratic system.



Amazing. I don't understand this wage gap other people from other countries are talking about. Wage gap between genders never existed in my country.

Do we still need feminism? Yes. Proof: NF.



> What happened to all the feminists on NF? There used to be a lot more feminist warriors here. This thread turned out surprisingly one-sided.



After years of debating with immature creatures, it can get tiring. Not everyone likes to repeat themselves. Feel free to look up past feminism-related posts. As for me, I'd rather go here to chill and/or divert myself whenever I feel stressed rather than go on an online crusade that doesn't result in anything. There are more pressing issues irl.

One thing is for sure though. Reading such posts gave me a very negative view of Western men, thanks to NF.


----------



## EJ (Nov 23, 2013)

im scratching my head wondering why a lot of people hate feminist. 

im sure you have idiots within the group of people that label themselves as such, but it seems as though a lot of people focus on select few, and completely exaggerate it and take some of these pictures (that are obvious jokes) and use it for their defense. 

again, im not saying that there aren't feminist that are completely out of touch with reality, but to say feminism isn't needed is a completely idiotic thing to say.


----------



## Blue (Nov 23, 2013)

What do you call an advocacy movement for a people that already have equal rights?

A supremacist group.

It's only a very small minority of women who are under this oppression/patriarchy delusion, but they're very vocal and if you keep calling average men rapists enough, there will inevitably, as we've seen in the last page of this thread, be a backlash: a masculinist movement. Guys like Marty will get together, compare notes, and start running around telling other men they're being oppressed and it's time to fight back.

And that just won't be fun for anyone.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 23, 2013)

horsdhaleine said:


> There are more pressing issues irl.



Pretty much anything is a more pressing issue than debating strangers on the internet, though. Didn't stop them in the past.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## EJ (Nov 23, 2013)

Blue said:


> A supremacist group.




No, you don't. 



> noun a person who believes in or advocates the supremacy of a particular group,


----------



## EJ (Nov 23, 2013)

like what the fuck is this. 

"make my own definition up to support my horrible arguments" 

get a grip


----------



## Blue (Nov 23, 2013)

Flow said:


> No, you don't.



Yes, the supremacy of a particular group.

"Men are rapists, women aren't, therefore women deserve unequal protection under the law."

"Most physicists and mathematicians are men. Clearly women are being discriminated against. Women dominating the social sciences is just natural".

"Men are pigs, and should not make sexual advances on women ever. Until we want them to, because we're sure as fuck not doing it ourselves, how shameless  could you be?"

It's all supremacist bullshit.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 23, 2013)

horsdhaleine said:


> Amazing. I don't understand this wage gap other people from other countries are talking about. Wage gap between genders never existed in my country.
> 
> Do we still need feminism? Yes. Proof: NF.
> 
> ...



You should see how some of these people get with race.



Flow said:


> im scratching my head wondering why a lot of people hate feminist.
> 
> im sure you have idiots within the group of people that label themselves as such, but it seems as though a lot of people focus on select few, and completely exaggerate it and take some of these pictures (that are obvious jokes) and use it for their defense.
> 
> again, im not saying that there aren't feminist that are completely out of touch with reality, but to say feminism isn't needed is a completely idiotic thing to say.



It's easy to confuse the radical feminism with feminism in general, because it's all people really ever hear about. 'Sex-positive' feminism, or self-identified feminists who do recognize the unfairness in other social matters you never hear about because oftentimes it is inconvenient to the narrative certain people or groups want to present, and what's more the radical part of feminism is incredibly vocal and distinguished while general feminism more or less just blends into general civil rights activism.


----------



## Blue (Nov 23, 2013)

If we define feminism as "advocacy for the establishment and preservation of equal rights for women worldwide" then I am a feminist.

Unfortunately, that definition like atheism has been kidnapped and killed by a bunch of delusional assholes.
('asshole', by the way, is an insult that's only applied to males. I'm applying it to females here. Feminism!)


----------



## SLB (Nov 23, 2013)

Asshole isn't unisex? 

I got some apologizing to do...


----------



## Blue (Nov 23, 2013)

It really isn't.

I was driving with one of my friends once, and we get cut off by this black sports car. He's like "Fucking asshole!"

I look over and here's this attractive blonde in the driver's seat, and so I go "That's a pretty hot asshole".

He looks over to confirm this and corrects himself: "Fuckin' bitch."


----------



## EJ (Nov 23, 2013)

Blue said:


> Yes, the supremacy of a particular group.



I'm not going to explain to you what a supremacist group is since I just gave you the definition. Everyone who label themselves as feminist aren't supremacist if that is what you're pointing at. 





> You should see how some of these people get with race.



it's just too much of a coincidence that these select few have the same views for mainly everything. it's like they organize what thread they'll shit in next in pms.


EDIT:

It's also too much of a coincidence that most of the time, they aren't funny.


----------



## Blue (Nov 23, 2013)

Flow said:


> I'm not going to explain to you what a supremacist group is since I just gave you the definition.



Honey, those people who _write_ the definitions? The people who define and redefine words in the lexicon to better describe our always changing world?

I'm one of them. It's not hard. All you have to do is understand the concepts which lie under the meaning of the words.

What else is a supremacist group than an advocacy group for a demographic that already has equal or greater rights? A group that believes they are inherently superior and thereby deserve greater rights?

You're right that's not feminism. But it is many feminists - the vocal ones - and so they are hijacking the movement and the definition in the minds of many - including myself. 

What happens when everyone believes a word means something it doesn't actually mean in the dictionary?

It gets changed. Mind-blowing, I know. You can't just throw dictionaries at people and prevent linguistic evolution forever.

Many people already don't define "feminist" as a feminist. They define it as an angry militant fat woman. If anyone started taking them seriously you'd see some very interesting linguistic evolution indeed.

Starting with "masculinist" being added.


----------



## EJ (Nov 23, 2013)

> Honey, those people who write the definitions? The people who define and redefine words in the lexicon to better describe our always changing world?
> 
> I'm one of them.



and im god himself, telling you to take your bitching else where. its an eyesore seeing you generalize with that heinous overrated ass anime in your set.

if you wrote the "definitions for anything' like you're lying about right now, i'd be scared of whoever gets their hands on your creations.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 23, 2013)

Blue said:


> If we define feminism as "advocacy for the establishment and preservation of equal rights for women worldwide" then I am a feminist.
> 
> Unfortunately, that definition like atheism has been kidnapped and killed by a bunch of delusional assholes.
> ('asshole', by the way, is an insult that's only applied to males. I'm applying it to females here. Feminism!)



Sometimes your stupidity can be unreal. Those that identify as feminist are those that while being civil rights activists have a focal point or expertise on women's issues. This is exactly what I mean by you commenting on matters you clearly have no knowledge on.



> Honey, those people who write the definitions? The people who define and redefine words in the lexicon to better describe our always changing world?
> 
> I'm one of them. It's not hard. All you have to do is understand the concepts which lie under the meaning of the words.



Urban Dictionary doesn't exactly count.


----------



## Takahashi (Nov 23, 2013)

Shiorin said:


> The first is that they blindly parrot the exaggerated pay gap of 77 cents to 1 dollar, which has been disproven, most recently by a  that pegs it to a much more modest gap.



You don't even need a study to know that the use of that statistic was intentionally dishonest.  It's often tagged with "for doing the same work as men", which is completely untrue.  The criteria for the statistic is simply full-time work.  In other words, someone who flips burgers at Mcdonalds is lumped in the same area as the guy who owns Mcdonalds.  Men simply tend to have more high-paying jobs than women overall, although that's starting to shift with more young women continuing with post-secondary education.

From what I've read, there does appear to still be some kind of gap unexplained by this, but there's also several other factors that we really can't figure out definitively.  Even if we were to go with the "for doing the same work", there's still more to consider that can't be accurately gauged because the scope is too big.  For example, I worked at a glass shop over the summer.  Didn't take long to get the hang of things, and I was doing the same things as the other guys there.  However, I was getting paid less.  Technically, it would be true to say that half Japanese guys make less money than white guys at this particular shop; however, it's also very disingenuous because it ignores factors like experience (especially true in my case), work ethic, performance, and persistence is requesting raises.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> hm. I find that to be an incredibly dishonest assessment. While income level, race, and occupation often influenced one's standing in society, you'd find that within each of the cultures of the classes of these societies that men had, and it was expected, they have a more authoritative role while women have more of a subservient role. A universal characteristic that existed between different classes.
> 
> So while a rich woman would be above a poor man in society she was still considered beneath a rich man, and a poor man was all the same above a poor woman.



Sorry, I don't see this as being dishonest. 
The fact that rich female widower is in a position well above 99% percentage of the males in society rejects the idea of all women being the universal underclass.  

Race, Religion, Nationality, Wealth were all considered much more important then gender throughout history. 

The idea that "men should hold power" came hand in hand with the belief that "peasantry needed to be governed" 
Being biased for a few select noble men in society is not the same as being for men in society. 



Blue said:


> Fast forward 15 years and he could vote, while she'd have to wait another 50 years.


Not really, many states allowed for women to vote before the constitutional amendment and many Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from voting. 



KFC said:


> Well, the study of gender inequalities is based on the premise generally of them being in the same social class. Yes, social class systems DO greatly affect the general power that men and women hold over each other, like you said. However, within those same class systems, it is typically known that men hold direct or indirect power over women.
> Now, I think it might be safe to say that most scholarship about this kind of thing takes a viewpoint from a western European/American view, and doesn't focus much on other regions of the world.


Which I believe is a grave imbalance in the portrayal of the genders in the past. To only look in a single social class is a terrible way to judge the role of women vs men in society.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 23, 2013)

Flow said:


> im scratching my head wondering why a lot of people hate feminist.
> 
> im sure you have idiots within the group of people that label themselves as such, but it seems as though a lot of people focus on select few, and completely exaggerate it and take some of these pictures (that are obvious jokes) and use it for their defense.
> 
> again, im not saying that there aren't feminist that are completely out of touch with reality, but to say feminism isn't needed is a completely idiotic thing to say.



I can think of a few reasons why feminists are unpopular. For one thing, feminists are more or less the moral guardians of the 21st century. They basically protest and rant against behavior that they consider to be morally objectionable. Its not a coincidence that feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Mckinnon teamed up with the religious right to try and ban porn. Then you have them policing hte media saying whether or not something is wrong because it "objectifies women." Moral guardians are never popular anywhere. 

Then there is the tendency for many feminists to accuse people who don't tow the line or agree with their beliefs to be misogynists or apologists for rape culture and so forth. This is even when the complaints are reasonable and criticisms are based on common sense. Just look at the feminist response whenever anyone suggests that women don't get blackout drunk so they don't end up a target for rapists.

Feminism is needed but I think that many people consider feminists to simply have skewed priorities and not be very competent about methodology in achieving their goals. You hear about plenty of protests and media critiques that have questionable effectiveness in changing women's status for the better but people who make life more difficult for women practically get a free hand to do what they want. Third world countries that treat women like shit barely merit a response from many feminists and you have the right wing successfully restrict reproductive services and abortion without the feminists being able to do anything about it.

There is also the tendency for many of the most misandrist feminists to have the loudest and most influential voices. The most established feminists tend to be the older pseudo-revolutionaries from the 1960s-1970s who have managed to establish themselves as major media and political figures due to their seniority, and those feminists have lots of misandrist beliefs. They also have a tendency to play fast and loose with the facts in order to get their way. Woman studies is not known for their excellence in research. Hell, many women's studies professors are more or less the second wave feminists from the 1960s-70s who got tenure due to seniority.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 23, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> Sorry, I don't see this as being dishonest.
> The fact that rich female widower is in a position well above 99% percentage of the males in society rejects the idea of all women being the universal underclass.



Yet that's only you strawmanning, or just basically being entirely in denial about the clear hierarchy that existed among each class when it came to gender. 

Money was more influential, and has been the most influential factor regarding a person's standing in society, but it is not the only one. So again, a woman with money would have traditionally been considered below authority of a man of similar standing, just as a poor man was expected to have authority beyond that of a poor woman.



> Race, Religion, Nationality, Wealth were all considered much more important then gender throughout history.



That doesn't mean gender was never a factor. 



> The idea that "men should hold power" came hand in hand with the belief that "peasantry needed to be governed"
> Being biased for a few select noble men in society is not the same as being for men in society.



Are you really going to act like centuries of believing women were, upon divine will no less, supposed to be subservient to men never existed? This is why I call your assessment dishonest. You intentionally ignore the clear attitudes when it came to the sexes in the past, and the effect it had on the power structure of society. 



> Which I believe is a grave imbalance in the portrayal of the genders in the past. To only look in a single social class is a terrible way to judge the role of women vs men in society.



But he's not. He said the same thing I did. When you take into account the hierarchy among each of the social classes, men were often if not always considered to have higher authority than the women that hailed from similar standings. For many civilizations, the general societal attitude is that when it came to a man and woman in similar situations, the man had the authority.


----------



## Mael (Nov 23, 2013)

Lol Women's Studies as a major.  Yeah good luck finding a job with that in large quantity.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yet that's only you strawmanning, or just basically being entirely in denial about the clear hierarchy that existed among each class when it came to gender.
> 
> Money was more influential, and has been the most influential factor regarding a person's standing in society, but it is not the only one. So again, a woman with money would have traditionally been considered below authority of a man of similar standing, just as a poor man was expected to have authority beyond that of a poor woman.


I never said otherwise.




Seto Kaiba said:


> That doesn't mean gender was never a factor.


When did I say it wasn't




Seto Kaiba said:


> Are you really going to act like centuries of believing women were, upon divine will no less, supposed to be subservient to men never existed? This is why I call your assessment dishonest. You intentionally ignore the clear attitudes when it came to the sexes in the past, and the effect it had on the power structure of society.


Where did I say it wasn't a factor at all?



Seto Kaiba said:


> But he's not. He said the same thing I did. When you take into account the hierarchy among each of the social classes, men were often if not always considered to have higher authority than the women that hailed from similar standings. For many civilizations, the general societal attitude is that when it came to a man and woman in similar situations, the man had the authority.


I will quote
"Well, the study of gender inequalities is based on the premise generally of them being in the same social class."
So yes, he is.


----------



## Daxter (Nov 23, 2013)

Blue said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that definition like atheism has been kidnapped and killed by a bunch of delusional assholes.



Oh boy.                                                                                              /


----------



## mlc818 (Nov 23, 2013)

The negative response is exaggerated due to the tiny skirt and high heeled black leather boots.  Though, personally, I think people should be able to wear whatever they like without suffering derision, but a lot of women are a little more critical of provocative dress.

I'm sure the results are relatively accurate, but the outfit was designed to elicit a reaction. (i.e. fewer people would be surprised or critical of the "catty"-ness if she came in in a small, tight dress)

I doubt it applies to all women, though.  Also it could easily be a learned behavior, as in many or all of your female friends act like this so you learn to be critical of other unknown women as well.


----------

