Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?

[Drifter]

The problem is nature doesnt change. If men were abusive in mass back then it would still be the same today, laws or not. In fact if men were so abusive by nature women would have no laws today at all protecting them since you so elequantly pointed out when you said men could just overpower women. Your views are bias and inonsistent. Your basically saying that the only thing protecting women from nowadays are laws(which were ironically given by men according to you, the same men that just cant help but subjugate women).

Lol how are my views inconsistent? Look at the porn and sex trafficking industries. That doesn't count as abuse en mass to you? Laws dont protect women. Violence and r*pe still happen and there are several countries where the laws do nt even attempt to protect women at all.

Your views are dishonest. I acknowledge that women have been abused and mistreated, but to conclude that the sweeping majoritty of relationships and marriages were characterized by abuse, subjugation, and mistreatment is dogwater and laughable. Your the one that needs to prove that in a conclusive sense and not just use examples and segments in history that build your argument. Not only that, but apply context that the world was allot different before feminism.

I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong with your sources? As for the majority of marriages and relationships being unhappy ... couples I know irl. The divorce rate. The way men and women speak about each other. MGTOW.

If men were abusive like you say back then it would be apparent today, because their nature has not changed.

It does still happen today?

You are right when you say scores of women have been mistreated, but to say that defines womens history is utterly dishonest and to teach that to women is dispicable.

You think I want to believe that as a women? Do you have any idea how disheartening it is to read about that crap? Ok so provide a rebuttal. Show me what the true history between men and women is.

 

[Lyfe]

Theres no need to provide a rebuttal. All you have done is point out that there have been multitudes of women that have been abused and mistreated in history under certain cultures which I dont deny. However to go a step further and contend that historically speaking mans relation to women is predominantly one of abuse, mistreatment, and subjugation is preposterous. That is classic feminist 101 brainwashing. To contend these systems were designed with subjugation and cruelty in mind rather competency is something you havent proved, but cling to.

I even pointed out that men would exploit and mistreat other men so to act as if it mans mistreatment was exclusive to women on the basis of their gender isnt even true. Weak tribes exploited, enslaved, and took advantage of other weak tribes, men expoliting other men and creating laws diminishing the value of the lives of other men. If you want to argue that men are evil I will agree. If you want to argue that the evil of men somehow affected women more than it did other men then i would say its simply untrue. Unless mens cruelty to women somehow deserves more recognition than mens own cruelty to other men? I thought we were equal....

So I do believe you want to believe as you do, because without it certain stances and reforms dont even become justified. People need a justification for their own prejudices.

 

[Drifter]

Theres no need to provide a rebuttal. All you have done is point out that there have been multitudes of women that have been abused and mistreated in history under certain cultures which I dont deny. However to go a step further and contend that historically speaking mans relation to women is predominantly one of abuse, mistreatment, and subjugation is preposterous. That is classic feminist 101 brainwashing.

You've made several claims without evidence. No source for the studies you mentioned, not a single link to contend that the patriarchal laws as you called them, were somehow for the benefit of women. No evidence for women claiming to be weighed down by the burden of independence. Nothing.

To contend these systems were designed with subjugation and cruelty in mind rather competency is something you havent proved, but cling to.

If these systems were truly about competence then why were women restricted from receiving an education? Why were they not allowed to contribute? Why were sons bestowed with so much more value than daughters that it was able to lead to customs killing baby girls (a practice that stems back to the ancient world and is still practiced in several countries today)? What about the laws that regulated wife-beating or ignored marital r*pe? Where is the male equivalent for any of these things? You cannot claim a system is based on competence when by its very nature, it cripples the potential for competence in a certain group.

I even pointed out that men would exploit and mistreat other men so to act as if it mans mistreatment was exclusive to women on the basis of their gender isnt even true. Weak tribes exploited, enslaved, and took advantage of other weak tribes, men expoliting other men and creating laws diminishing the value of the lives of other men. If you want to argue that men are evil I will agree. If you want to argue that the evil of men somehow affected women more than it did other men then i would say its simply untrue. Unless mens cruelty to women somehow deserves more recognition than mens own cruelty to other men? I thought we were equal....

Missing the point again. Men have NEVER throughout history, been subjected to physical or sexual violence on the basis of being male at the hands of women. I'll help you out here: the creation of child soldiers and horrors of fighting in wars is an example of a male-biased atrocity. Men and boys have been disproportionately effected. Some things are carried out on the basis of gender. Male babies have never been killed just for being male, nowhere near the scale as female babies. You really think it was the same? Within the majority of people groups that were colonized, women still mostly had the raw deal. They were still overwhelmingly the victims of war r*pe for example.

So I do believe you want to believe as you do, because without it certain stances and reforms dont even become justified. People need a justification for their own prejudices.

I have been asking you countless times for even just a single link to prove me wrong.

 

[justjess]

The laws don’t change that violence against women exists. The laws provide a means of escape for female victims primarily. Without the ability to earn decent wages, have your own bank account, and obtain property or an apartment for yourself a victim of domestic violence is permanently trapped in that situation unless a “benevolent” male father steps in and extracates her... the laws rarely criminally punish abusers but that isn’t the only point of them.

my aunt back in the late 60’s early 70’s was married to a man who became an abusive addict..she went to work one day and he sold all her posssessions (furniture etc) while she was gone.. my grandfather had to come get her and take her home and paid him off to divorce her and never come back.

 

[recure]

Male babies have never been killed just for being male, nowhere near the scale as female babies.

Are you implying that men are the ones killing babies for being female? If so, where is this going on today? If we factor in abortion, aren't women responsible for killing most babies regardless of gender? Also what do you think is the reason Crowley suggests sacrificing male children? And do you believe this ritual is practiced?

 

[Cintra]

the abuse and violence agst women is systemic.

Including by hypocrites like you.
Hypocrites like you who think that male attention is the most important thing in the world.



Men, and male attention are all that are important to you.

You are transferring your fears onto me.
You are afraid that you are too ugly to get a man in this world of perfect bodies and perfect faces.
You are also afraid of having a proper relationship with a man because you are psychologically screwed up.

I suggest you get some therapy before I find more of your appalling posts and put them up as screenshots.

 

[Maldarker]

I'm equating them because lots of men still use the past to assert dominance and superiority over women now. If manhood was staked only in what they provided then sure, men are obsolete.

It does largely define the relationship between the two genders. You haven't been able to prove otherwise. Its captured in everything from religion to law to art. That's the Genesis 3:16 curse at play -men dominating and brutalizing women. That is what I personally believe. The relationship between men and women has been largely painful and the happy successful ones are the exception.

Don't worry women will be obsolete soon enough & this will be a moot arguement.

 

[Drifter]

Are you implying that men are the ones killing babies for being female? If so, where is this going on today? If we factor in abortion, aren't women responsible for killing most babies regardless of gender? Also what do you think is the reason Crowley suggests sacrificing male children? And do you believe this ritual is practiced?

No, I'm referring to the ancient practice of exposure (also gender-selective abortions). Today it's mostly still practiced in Asia. Idk much about Crowley except that he favored a lot stuff as part of his rituals including sodomy and abuse of children.

 

[Drifter]

Don't worry women will be obsolete soon enough & this will be a moot arguement.

True equality then.

 

[Cintra]

He didn’t mean that literally lol. It’s symbolic.

If it is the quote I am thinking of, he meant masturbation.

 

[Cintra]

That’s pretty much it, maybe ejaculation more generally.

Spilling his seeds on the floor.
Like Onan.

 

[Cintra]

Onan’s murder by God is definitely worse than what Crowley did…regardless the joke was Crowley’s book would be seized and censored or destroyed if openly talking about stroking it, but it’s A-OK to write about child murder.

Are you a follower of Crowley?

I always thought he was fun to read about, but would have been a bit of a dick if you had actually known him.

Like, he would smoke your cigars, drink your brandy, seduce your partner, and then still try and touch you for money.

 

[recure]

No, I'm referring to the ancient practice of exposure (also gender-selective abortions). Today it's mostly still practiced in Asia. Idk much about Crowley except that he favored a lot stuff as part of his rituals including sodomy and abuse of children.

What about abortion as practices in the West today? If we regard this as the killing of babies, is it illogical to assume that women are responsible for it since it is their choice in the majority of cases?

He didn’t mean that literally lol. It’s symbolic.

Right after saying how an animal should be killed as party of the "bloody sacrifice" he says a male child would make the "most suitable victim" because "human sacrifice is the best". I don't know how you can interpret that as referring to masturbation but I suppose when you try to justify Crowley you have no scruples like that.

 

[Drifter]

What about abortion as practices in the West today? If we regard this as the killing of babies, is it illogical to assume that women are responsible for it since it is their choice in the majority of cases?

My point was that "gendercide" is an example of how female attributes and contributions were diminished by viewing sons as more valuable than daughters. That androcentric thinking is what led to more baby girls being killed in those practices than men killed in all major wars of the 20th century. My point was not that men were the ones doing most of the killing. Both parents were usually responsible.

 

[Cintra]

No. I admire his creative and rebellious spirit and I do think he was genuine seeker of knowledge, but as you say he was an asshole who was full of contradictions. He’s just not the monster that puritans make him to be either.

Oh yes. He was an interesting guy.
Very big on the ego, very prone to say things to shock. (As you mentioned)
Very hard sometimes to know when he was joking. Like the baby thing.

 

[recure]

My point was that "gendercide" is an example of how female attributes and contributions were diminished by viewing sons as more valuable than daughters. That androcentric thinking is what led to more baby girls being killed in those practices than men killed in all major wars of the 20th century. My point was not that men were the ones doing most of the killing. Both parents were usually responsible.

Alright but what about my question about abortion as practiced at the present? To reiterate, if abortion is the practice of killing babies, are women mostly responsible for infanticide (regardless of gender) in this case?

“You are also likely to get into trouble over this chapter unless you truly comprehend its meaning.”

He liked to shock the shockable, and decades later it still works. He wrote in a way to deliberately throw the likes of you off and drive you crazy.

Both the literal and symbolic meaning you put forward are grotesque nonsense. I assure you, I'm not crazy enough to care about deciphering that quack.

 

[Drifter]

Alright but what about my question about abortion as practiced at the present? To reiterate, if abortion is the practice of killing babies, are women mostly responsible for infanticide (regardless of gender) in this case?

If you want to say that women are the ones mostly requesting abortions mostly, yes. "Infanticide" doesnt apply to unborn fetuses. Exposure killed babies that were already born by abandoning them to the elements. Many people also smothered their baby girls. Why are you switching the goal posts anyway? Abortion doesnt have anything to do with the rest of the conversation?

 

[Drifter]

Both the literal and symbolic meaning you put forward are grotesque nonsense. I assure you, I'm not crazy enough to care about deciphering that quack.

Child abuse is equally as grotesque as throttling the rooster? Man, your moral compass doesnt seem all too straight either.

 

[Cintra]

Yes!!! Back to original question!

Cancer or feminism.
Which is worst?

Vote now!!!!

 

[Drifter]

Yes!!! Back to original question!

Cancer or feminism.
Which is worst?

Vote now!!!!

Urgh tough one. But I'm gone have to go with cancer.