A Showcase for why modern Feminism is cancerous.

[The Original Sixth]

The state has the authority and uses it. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, they will enforce it.

I never said I don't like it. I've asserted that what you claim is not true. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Until this authority is removed from the state, they are the de facto owners of children. Doesn't matter whether you think it's fair or not, this is the state of the playing field, and an honest man must acknowledge it.

No, that is the cry of a weak man who refuses to acknowledge his own faults.

The state can take my computer. Does it make it theirs? No.

The state has many provisions to do many things, that does not mean that it undermines individual ownership. Pretending that people don't have custody or control over their own children is obscene. You want to insist on state-ownership, look over at China and see what that actually looks like. Don't bring that bullshit here.

>But what about the wamen?

Don't pull that bullshit with me. You insisted that western women hold no value because they can't keep it in their pants. Well guess what bucko, turnabout is fair play. Men have just as often broken that same vow, so don't pretend as if we haven't.

@LifeisTiresome is not a woman, and is not in the market for a husband. As far as I know.

No, but it might not be unreasonable to assume that he might deem to agree to the rules of a vow that he'd expect from a woman.

Uh oh, it's a code red! Man being angry!

It is natural and healthy to be angry at injustice. Anger provides motivation to endure and overcome hardship.

And anger without purpose is the rage of an impotent man who refuses to accept his own failures.

Oddly enough, all of your criticisms don't seem to be aimed at what we should shoot for in regards to masculinity or femininity or society as a whole, but rather on how women are bitches for asking that you do better.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Well, I consider myself more volcel as I have never approached women to try and get a girl. Too lazy. A girl did approach me once but she had a boyfriend and admitted when I told her no that she likes to be with a guy for a while then she got bored and then while with him found someone else.

It's good that you turned down an obviously childish woman, but I don't see why you don't want to try and approach women.

I admit. I am a loser kissless virgin who may have screwed up his bodies growth when young hence I have nothing to offer women hence why I said that they wouldn't want me.

Are you crippled?

Aside from this, I agree with everything else in your post.

He really has no idea what he's talking about and his mentality is dangerously unhealthy.

I personally think, men who are not chads should be able to have access to companion bots and women can finally be free of the so called creeps and thus be able to be with the chads and be part of his harem as they have always wanted. Everybody wins.

You really shouldn't treat people that way. Least of all yourself.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

I never said I don't like it. I've asserted that what you claim is not true. Feel free to prove me wrong.

When the state wants to change who has custody of children, it does so.
When the state wants to mandate drugs be injected into the children, it does so.
When the state wants to mandate that children spend twelve years being indoctrinated by midwit feminists, it does so.
When the state wants to mandate that a child be sexually mutilated and drugged in an attempt to pretend to be the oppose sex, it does so.

Much like land, which is 'owned' by citizens only until the state decides otherwise, real ownership resides in the state. It should not be this way, these authorities should never have been granted to the state, but they were. Pretending otherwise prevents men from recognizing the need to strip the state of such authorities.

Don't pull that bullshit with me. You insisted that western women hold no value because they can't keep it in their pants. Well guess what bucko, turnabout is fair play. Men have just as often broken that same vow, so don't pretend as if we haven't.

Immediately attempting to change the subject of a discussion from "challenges a man faces in marrying" to "challenges a woman faces in marrying" is a typical feminist strategy. Repeated over and over, it effectively communicates the message that he should shut the fuck up about his problems and pay attention to the real problems -- hers. This not a productive way to approach the very real challenges a young man faces in attempting to marry.

As for the rest of your crap,
>you sound angry
>cry of a weak man
>guess what bucko
>mentality is dangerously unhealthy

Your demonstrable inability to engage on this topic without making it about the speakers casts doubt on everything you've said. You cannot speak to maturity without self-control.

 

[Fleiur]

LotR is mature.
GoT is mature.
Adventure Time is not.
Steven Universe is not.
Superman is not.
Batman is not.
@almostinsane Batman is not. See? hahaha

 

[The Original Sixth]

When the state wants to change who has custody of children, it does so.
When the state wants to mandate drugs be injected into the children, it does so.
When the state wants to mandate that children spend twelve years being indoctrinated by midwit feminists, it does so.
When the state wants to mandate that a child be sexually mutilated and drugged in an attempt to pretend to be the oppose sex, it does so.

Much like land, which is 'owned' by citizens only until the state decides otherwise, real ownership resides in the state. It should not be this way, these authorities should never have been granted to the state, but they were. Pretending otherwise prevents men from recognizing the need to strip the state of such authorities.

I'll take that to mean you have absolutely no evidence. Thus, I dismiss your claim.

Immediately attempting to change the subject of a discussion from "challenges a man faces in marrying" to "challenges a woman faces in marrying" is a typical feminist strategy.

That may be so. However, the actual discussion we were having was about men within the "nerd" community and the changes I think they need to make, even though it aligns with several feminist talking points designed to primarily shut people down.

Repeated over and over, it effectively communicates the message that he should shut the fuck up about his problems and pay attention to the real problems -- hers.

No, that's not at all what I said. Perhaps read back over all of my posts and realize that I am focusing on the problems of men. Nor did I dismiss any concern that men have or that they should have them. In fact, another member outright criticized my posts on those merits.

This not a productive way to approach the very real challenges a young man faces in attempting to marry.

Where as calling all western women thots does?

Your demonstrable inability to engage on this topic without making it about the speakers casts doubt on everything you've said. You cannot speak to maturity without self-control.

Are you done poisoning the well? If not, I eagerly await criticism on my positions. And evidence for your claim that the state owns children now.

 

[almostinsane]

If Batman isn't, neither is Iron Man.

 

[Fleiur]

If Batman isn't, neither is Iron Man.

Ahahahahha

 

[The Original Sixth]

If Batman isn't, neither is Iron Man.

Eh, Iron Man has an easier pass because he's a guy wearing power armor. Of course, you could take the basic characteristics of Batman and make them into something more adult themed, as has been done with his movies. Batman Begins, Dark Knight, and such are clear examples of trying to mature a character for audiences. And they did a reasonably good job.

 

[almostinsane]

Eh, Iron Man has an easier pass because he's a guy wearing power armor. Of course, you could take the basic characteristics of Batman and make them into something more adult themed, as has been done with his movies. Batman Begins, Dark Knight, and such are clear examples of trying to mature a character for audiences. And they did a reasonably good job.

True enough. @Fleiur See?

 

[almostinsane]

@Fleiur is actually my wife. We actually met because of our mutual love for "childish" things.

 

[The Original Sixth]

@Fleiur is actually my wife. We actually met because of our mutual love for "childish" things.

I don't see why that's a problem.

 

[almostinsane]

I don't see why that's a problem.

It seemed earlier that you said that liking childish things made men seem unattractive.

 

[The Original Sixth]

It seemed earlier that you said that liking childish things made men seem unattractive.

No, I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding (have you seen my avatar?).

My point is that it is all too common in the community to love it in excess.

 

[LordsFire]

No, I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding (have you seen my avatar?).

My point is that it is all too common in the community to love it in excess.

Your first post on the topic very much came across as saying 'having more than the barest trace of interest in things you got into as a child is going to lose you a chance with a woman.'

It's become clear over ensuing posts that that is not your actual position, but I'd recommend you go edit that post to clarify your position better.

 

[Deleted member]

I refer all you gentlemen to this thread: The Dangerous Idea: "Women's Liberation" - the Ultimate Stage of Patriarchy, humbly transcribing work by Donna Chrysothemis for The Coming Age. It contains the Madrian response and perspective on certain ideas discussed in this thread.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Your first post on the topic very much came across as saying 'having more than the barest trace of interest in things you got into as a child is going to lose you a chance with a woman.'

It's become clear over ensuing posts that that is not your actual position, but I'd recommend you go edit that post to clarify your position better.

I mean...I could.

But eh...

Boot prefers it this way. It will prepare him for his tasks to come next year.

 

[almostinsane]

No, I'm afraid that's a misunderstanding (have you seen my avatar?).

My point is that it is all too common in the community to love it in excess.

Upon reading through your posts more carefully, I can see that. Like LordsFire said, your first post can come off as condescending towards liking these things, but I can see you didn't mean it that way now.

 

[Captain X]

I grant you that there are those who may not care as much about having children as other things in their lives. I do not believe that there is no desire, not unless they've had their minds polluted about children in general.

My mind has been "polluted" by actual experience with children and their parents. I have some understanding, because children are children, and parents are getting more and more restricted in what they can do to discipline their children because of busybodies, but even without that it's a pretty hard sell what with the cost and time involved in having children, even if they were perfect little angels.

Nor am I insisting that people cannot indulge or enjoy things that are deemed to be childish. Rather, I am taking the position that we all need to raise our standards of ourselves and others. That involves maybe throwing out some old action figures, expanding our horizons to other interests, and maybe addressing a piece of work beyond there mere shallow shiny wrapper it came in. Much of which we already do anyway--and much that I think we want to do anyway.

And you're reminding me a lot of SJWs because of this attitude.

 

[The Original Sixth]

And you're reminding me a lot of SJWs because of this attitude.

You should go put in a good word for me at SB then.

 

[Yinko]

Maybe this is a commonly said thing, and I've just never heard it before, but Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro were talking and brought up feminism. At one point they said "feminism says that the patriarchy got it all right, so they want a piece of that". That kind of explains everything wrong with it at a base level.

If something as nebulous as a "patriarchy" can be said to have ever existed (most harsh treatment of women is perpetrated by older women, and women have their own power structures which are closed to men), then it would inherently require support personnel who aren't playing the same competitive game. In a historical society, men compete against men and women compete against women, each in their own way. Part of this is because female competition is far less deadly.

We can look at a society as much like any other organized group. Let's take an army as a simplified example. In an army you have combat personnel and support personnel. Without support personnel the combat personnel cannot act effectively, and without the combat personnel the support personnel are nearly helpless in the face of violent opposition. You can extend this analogy to salesmen and office workers, or most any other organization. You have the actors and the helpers, and neither can function without the other due to the inherent symbiotic relationship.

If feminism says "men have it all right, we need to be that", then you are aiming for a society that is 100% actors, in which case things will inevitably fail. Or you are aiming to completely invert the biological predisposition, in which case things will fail anyway because everyone is acting contrary to their instincts. Amusingly, the "let's kill all the men and reproduce robotically" is the most stable argument, as it would try to split the remaining women into a 50/50 actor-helper split, thought it would still fail due to a mix of human nature and the probability of technological failure (if at any point they are unable to reproduce for any reason the species goes extinct).