Five minutes of hate news

[Skitzyfrenic]

Thank you for another solid post saving me the trouble, Skitzy.

You're welcome.

Sometimes, I try.

 

[LordsFire]

I should probably add an addendum here though, for Soli's sake:

Most of the posters here don't want to ban women from the workplace, think women should be required to 'stay in the kitchen' or anything like that. We believe in freedom of the individual, if a woman decides she wants to have a career, wants to be single, etc, that's her decision to make.

We just don't believe that it's acceptable for feminists to lie to women about what is and is not likely to lead them to a fulfilling lifestyle.

My best guess is that by natural inclination, 1/10 to 1/20 women are natural 'tomboys,' as interested in stereotypically 'guy' things as most (but certainly not all) men are. Most men I know, and especially conservative men, find such women incredibly attractive, because they can have a woman in their life who also enjoys many of the same things that they do.

If I'm wrong on my guess about the ratio though, it honestly doesn't matter, because I'm not going to try to compel women to do or not do something. I am 100% confident though, that the feminists who think that all differences between men and women are purely through socialization, that's absolute garbage, utterly unscientific, and the result of a sick ideology.

Going beyond the question of 'how many girls want to do 'boy' things?' question though, most 'tomboys' still absolutely want to have a romantic partner in their life. There is an extant, but tiny number of both men and women who have very little interest in romance or sexuality, but I'd estimate that number is less than 1/100. Again, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter much, because I'm not going to try to compel anyone to have or not have romance in their life.

Modern feminists though, have a recurring mantra of 'women don't need men.' As an example, the slogan 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.' This has been around since the 70's, and is attributed to either Gloria Steinem or Irina Dunn, both of whom are considered significant figures in good standing in the feminist movement, Steinem in particular.

There are feminists who think that all heterosexual sex functionally counts as rape. There are feminists who literally want to cull men until they only comprise something like 5-10% of the population. These aren't just some crazy outliers, they will say these things openly, and not get kicked out of feminist organizations; some of them even have books they wrote used as texts in gender studies courses.

Sound too radical too be true? The rape thing is from none other than Andrea Dworkin, One of the most famed feminists of the 20th century. Feminism has been riddled by hate-preachers, insane misandrists, and all kinds of incredibly destructive ideology for decades.

More 'moderate' feminists still exert immense cultural pressure on young women to take up high-prestige jobs, when a lot of them are actually interested in more 'traditionally' feminine roles. 20 years ago, when I was a senior in high school, a number of young women I knew who had been planning to go to law school or medical school, realized 'Hey wait, I actually don't have any real interest in this. I want to teach elementary education/be a nurse/etc.'

I'm glad those girls had the self-awareness to push back against that cultural pressure, but how many more didn't?

I don't know for sure, but I do know it has been enough that some universities which were pushed to have gender quotes in STEM fields, ended up shutting entire departments down after almost all the girls who started in, for example, Chemistry, quickly realized 'I don't actually find this interesting at all,' transferred out to something more people-oriented and less technically-oriented.

Stuff like this resulted in both those young women wasting months or years of their lives, and shut out young men who had intended to pursue those programs in the first place.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I am pro-capitalism, fiercely against socialism, pro-meritocracy, a nationalist, pro-military, Pro-Israel, believe welfare states are dangerous, moderately anti-environmentalism, pro gun rights, firmly believe religion is a force for morality as long as it's kept distant from politics, despise revolutionary ideologies, and a supporter of the Constitution and the order of government. I also hate Grievance Politics and Marxist discourse. Some others too that I can't think of rn.


By all means, refute it. This is literally the only study that dealt with the topic that I could find.

Proof?

That feminists think they are, which I fancy should have been obvious.

Pro-Israel

Then you are not a nationalist by your own standards. Not to mention, Israel is a pretty egregious example of a welfare state, anti-gun and many more things you claim to be against.

 

[TheRejectionist]

I, uh, I already did this. In that post with all the links? I went and found as many serious governmental and scientific sources as I could. To include a scientific paper which uses happiness data from a survey that has been conducted since the 1970s along with every census in the United States.

A very strong source, I would say.

My dude, LordsFire even brought that up and you completely ignored it.



Um.

This is very much a google it yourself because people in your position kinda need to see it to believe it, and it all basically repeats ad naseum with a slant that usually comes across as very entitled and men are the fault.

There is near literal deluge of articles from women centric media about this subject. You could probably search female loneliness epidemic.

Women in the 30s+ are fucking losing it, they can't find a man, they feel lonely. Where have all the good men gone?! Which sounds suspiciously like incel rhetoric.

They self report that they did all the things feminism told them to do. Career, focus on themselves, enjoy their twenties. They can't get good men. Good men that they deserve.

The number of tiktoks of late twenties+ women having meltdowns realizing that they are increasingly likely to die cold and alone is on the rise.

This is all pretty public, and not reported on in a constructive way.

My conclusion from this explosion of public self-reporting, and magazine interviews on the subject is that career women are pretty fucking miserable and they self-identify that it's their lack of relationship.

The closest I came to a real source (search term used was what group of women is the unhappiest) was this from Psychology Today and 2011. But it's supporting documentation is an expired link. Several other articles use seem to use the same data.

To cover it briefly, Men (aged 39) who are married with a child and making $150-200k a year with a stay at home wife are the happiest.

The unhappiest are unmarried, childless professional Women (aged 42) making less than $100k a year.

Even the Guardian, using an official ONS (UK gov't afaik) survey for data that is also 404 not found, reports that people, in general, are least happy from 40-59.

It seems that men vs women happiness, in general, is a pretty fraught search, with wildly different conclusions everywhere. One said young women are happier, another said young men are. One said women were happier on average until late 40s, and another said women became less happy in their mid 30s. One report was global, and another was for some asshole in the middle of nowhere. And I couldn't find an actual paper in the amount of time I was willing to invest.

However, as we've got at least one good source on married people being happier than unmarried people (see my earlier post with all the links), and the stuff from this post, we can use our own brains to come to the conclusion that unmarried women in their 40s are pretty fucking miserable.

Aydin Paladin has an excellent video on how happy empowered women are actually miserable, complete with scientific papers.

While stumbling about, I will anecdotally share (because I'm like six searches past and I don't want to go back) that a lot of articles did mention that happier people tend to get married in the first place.

Except the Google part (in Europe now at least) the rest seems solid.

 

[Zachowon]

Even if that’s the case, that doesn’t mean that military material wouldn’t have also been affected by those issues. Or that there wouldn’t be concern over the possibility and investigation into it. Also, it’s still Boeing that’s being affected.

I mean, that's like saying whistleblowing about Texas Instruments something or other would get you killed just because they make Javelin missiles?

 

[Captain X]

I don't know, does Boeing have someone working for them who has it in them to assassinate a whistle blower? Or does it go deeper?

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Why is this your constant refrain? Let's see a little more effort posting from you backing up why you think feminism is such a force for good

I posted a study with statistics, which is more than everyone else did. That you dismiss it simply because it validates leftist sources is not my business.

Even the Guardian, using an official ONS (UK gov't afaik) survey for data that is also 404 not found, reports that people, in general, are least happy from 40-59.

Literally your own link says that women of that age group are happier than the men.

As for the rest of them, they have nothing to do with anything. It's just the recitation of facts nobody disputes like men also being occasional victims of abuse, albeit at much lower rates than women. Blaming that on feminism is certainly a take, of course, but not a good one.
Actually, some choice quotes from his links to show how I wasn't apparently supposed to read them to see if he is lying:

However, when it comes to severe teen dating violence — including sexual and physical assault — girls were disproportionately the victims

And the entire article he posted to show that professional unmarried women are less happy is basically just stats about how much harder professional women have it compared to professional men. Which he also skipped because he knew that nobody except me is going to be reading it.


Is this the discourse I'm going to get? Seriously? Links that disprove the point you're trying to make with them, cherry picking from articles that say the opposite of what you're trying to say, and off the wall rants about how

Let's see a little more effort posting from you backing up why you think feminism is such a force for good

Women's suffrage? ERA? Persecution of sexual exploitation of women? Rise of women in education? The persecution of domestic abusers?

 

[Wargamer08]

I posted a study with statistics, which is more than everyone else did. That you dismiss it simply because it validates leftist sources is not my business.

Literally your own link says that women of that age group are happier than the men.

As for the rest of them, they have nothing to do with anything. It's just the recitation of facts nobody disputes like men also being occasional victims of abuse, albeit at much lower rates than women. Blaming that on feminism is certainly a take, of course, but not a good one.
Actually, some choice quotes from his links to show how I wasn't apparently supposed to read them to see if he is lying:

And the entire article he posted to show that professional unmarried women are less happy is basically just stats about how much harder professional women have it compared to professional men. Which he also skipped because he knew that nobody except me is going to be reading it.


Is this the discourse I'm going to get? Seriously? Links that disprove the point you're trying to make with them, cherry picking from articles that say the opposite of what you're trying to say, and off the wall rants about how

Women's suffrage? ERA? Persecution of sexual exploitation of women? Rise of women in education? The persecution of domestic abusers?

Interesting, where are your links? You posted exactly one article from a well known leftist site. How about some studies? Shit I'd take some books over vague historical talking points like women's suffrage.

The rise of women in education has led to an unprecedented amount of deliberate anti-boy methods in education. See 'The War Against Boy' by Christina Sommers.

There is such a hilariously one sided take on domestic abuse in North America that it verges on parody. It's standard policy almost country wide to always arrest the male partner in any domestic disturbance, no matter the situation. There exist near zero male shelters for male victims of domestic abuse, the first male who tried to open a male shelter in Canada was shamed and ridiculed to the point of suicide.

You still haven't explained how you stand for meritocracy while stumping for gender quotas and forced employment practices. How are you pro military when forced inclusion of lowered standards for women weakens military readiness?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

where are your links? You posted exactly one article from a well known leftist site. How about some studies?

I posted one article because it was the ONLY study that went into the topic. Its natural that only a leftist site would publish it, because conservative papers are anti-feminist and fanatics on both sides only accept theories that agree with their agendas.

The rise of women in education has led to an unprecedented amount of deliberate anti-boy methods in education

There we are in agreement. Affirmative Action is and always will be a disaster.

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[Captain X]

TL;DW on both of those?

 

[DarthOne]

That’s old news. They started that back in 2022.

 

[DarthOne]

I don't know, does Boeing have someone working for them who has it in them to assassinate a whistle blower? Or does it go deeper?

Seems likely.

Lawyers For Boeing Whistleblower Found Dead in His Car as He Was About to Testify Against Aviation Giant Question Suicide Claim | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A suicide note was reportedly found next to Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, however, his lawyers are questioning whether he took his own life.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[LordsFire]

I posted one article because it was the ONLY study that went into the topic. Its natural that only a leftist site would publish it, because conservative papers are anti-feminist and fanatics on both sides only accept theories that agree with their agendas.

There we are in agreement. Affirmative Action is and always will be a disaster.

You have been given a whole slew of links supporting the position that modern feminism is terrible.

You've responded to what, one or two of them?

If you expect people to debate you seriously, sourcing their arguments, you're asking people to spend hours building well-structured arguments. If you're going to make low-effort posts youself, don't expect people to keep making high-effort posts in response.

I have work to do, and I know other people here do too.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

Literally your own link says that women of that age group are happier than the men.

That's great.

Did you fail to notice that I didn't assert, after admitting to finding incredible amounts of conflicting information on which sex was happier, that unmarried women in that age group were less happy than men?

No, I asserted that they were pretty fucking miserable. Not more, not less than men. Just that unmarried women in their 40s were miserable. The most miserable women is the furthest I think my statements would reasonably stretch.

As for the rest of them, they have nothing to do with anything.

Did you miss how the original point you disagreed with was that feminism had made things difficult for men? Made them unhappy? (DarthOne 'Feminism as a whole has done nothing but make life hell for most men of the younger generations.' You 'How?')

If women are unhappy, men are unhappy. Happy Wife, Happy Life is an old saying for a reason. Women are unhappy. Who do you think they take that out on? Not themselves, that's for sure. Because then they'd be wrong, feminism would be wrong, and how could something that glorifies women for existing be wrong?

Marriage rates are tied to happiness. For both men and women. Links have already been provided.

Marriage rates are definitely tied to feminism, since feminism is pushing women into careers and that means away from marriage.

Married people, with children, are the happiest demographic by a considerable amount. According to a study with an immense seed size, based off of a survey done every ten years with the US census (you know that government survey that it's actually a crime to not fill out?) since the 1970s.

Unmarried people with children are happier than those without children who are unmarried. Per links already provided.

Thus, on average, the childless and single career women is the most miserable woman, even if she is happier than an average man. Which given how married men with children are the happiest, leads me to believe unmarried men without children are the most miserable, but given the state of the courts, unmarried men with children could take that cake.

Feminism is the ideology that's pushing women into careers.

And as marriage rates are plummeting, divorce rates are climbing, and people (both men and women) are losing their virginity later in life, (Given that both sides of all three of those issues report on it with the facts typically the same but with different reasoning given, I'm not going to go fishing for links) more women are single and childless than ever. Which means women are unhappier than ever.

Unhappy people do not have happy relationships. Feminism supports women being strong and independent, but this makes them unhappy. And women and girls are overwhelming either mutually part of or the sole person engaging in domestic violence, per links provided earlier. Rates of emotional abuse are on par between the sexes. Taking out their unhappiness on their spouse is true for both sexes, except women are less happy when it's good and domestic violence is more likely because there's a domestic situation in the first place.

Totally related. Men don't want to be domestic abuse victims. And their victimhood is mocked, belittled, and ignored. Just like how female victims of domestic violence used to be treated, right?

Domestic violence rates are higher in unhappy relationships. And most of the time it's mutual violence, indeed not female victims. In fact, studies show, as linked before, that when a sole person is committing domestic violence it's overwhelming the woman.

That's totally related to how feminism fucks over women. Women thinking they can fight men is encouraged by feminist myths of physical parity and they get away with it because of tradition keeping men from striking back. Men don't want to be abused any more than women, adding to why men are avoiding long term relationships with women.

Defending themselves will get them arrested. (Which is actually a problem for both sexes if you do the research, but because men are usually bigger, stronger, and expected to be protectors it is, in fact, worse for them)

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are an excellent example of what reporting domestic abuse is like for men, when it goes right for the victim. He was the clear victim for gross abuses for years and he was still treated like the wife beater and dragged through the mud by nearly every publication and had his life and career ruined.

Feminism has had unintended consequences that have made things awful for young men even when they're otherwise succeeding. Because women aren't happy, and women are their least happy when they are SINK than they are DINK with DINK beating out single income with kids.

I offered other conclusions in video essay form from a person who strives to be as unbiased as possible in Aydin Paladin and her wealth of well researched and supported videos, including a specific example, some of which show how feminism has succeeded or failed women.

I linked a documentary that not only included a red pill journey, but a number of statistics about things like father's rights, and custody. As well as the way that women use visitation and custody like weapons against baby daddies.

Feminism also encourages strong independent mothers who spend large swathes of their time poisoning the well against fathers. Given that children don't understand the situation and courts, because of feminism exploiting traditional feelings and getting laws passed that favor women in these cases, this works an overwhelming amount of the time.

Making life hell for men who want to be fathers. Men who were willing to step up and do the right thing are getting fucked over. Direct chain to feminism, feminism making life hell for men.

(I have personal experience with this as one of the children. My mother tried very hard to poison me against my father. She's now alone in a nursing home with none of us kids speaking to her, and I live in Belize with my father on my dime, so guess who turned out to be the true parent and which one was using me as a weapon.)

Totally related.

And the entire article he posted to show that professional unmarried women are less happy is basically just stats about how much harder professional women have it compared to professional men. Which he also skipped because he knew that nobody except me is going to be reading it.

Was that the one that mentions Christina Hasslers' The Myth of Having it All?

Included this quote from the book: "Somewhere along the path of the women's liberation movement, we began to buy into the belief that to be an empowered woman means we have to do everything that both men and women do. So instead of making choices, we have tried to fulfill both gender roles at the same time." ?

That article and it's quote support LordsFire's position of women getting fucked over by the women's liberation movement, a feminist movement.

And that quote is basically 'Women are fucking themselves over trying to have it all.'

It's made worse because women as a demographic still expect a 10/10 guy making $100k to take care of them in a traditional manner while allowing them to be modern women. See any number of 'what do you look for in a man?' videos where sober women on the street say a man needs to make $500k/year to even be considered worth dating, let alone things like Fit and Fresh, Just Pearly Things or the Whatever podcast which really get into it. The last one is great, especially the earlier episodes because he just lets these women he invites on the show speak, and let's this insanity and delusion speak for itself. Or Hoe_math drawing his cute little diagrams and explaining the psychology and sociology behind the points he's making.

No one can have it all, that's why traditional gender roles exist.

Women breadwinning was something like a 70% increase in the divorce rate back in the 60s and 70s, only coming down to 'negligible' levels in recent years.

Of course, with marriage rates so low, female breadwinners are also just not getting married in the first place. Something, judging by all of the 'where have all the good men gone' articles that exist all across women focused media, women still really want to do.

Increasing their unhappiness and resentment. Who are they going to take that out on? Their healthy coping mechanisms? No, silly.

The men that aren't dating them, of course! Do you really think they're going to blame their choices ruining their marriage options?

Men as a demographic haven't been quiet about what they want in women, but feminism says that's sexist and awful, fuck, having a genital preference is sexist and transphobic according to intersectional feminism now a days.

Women listen to feminism, end up unhappy, and take that out on men, using feminism as the excuse, making men unhappy... Which makes men avoid women, making women unhappy, they take that out on men, using new microaggression/intersectional/critical race theory feminism as the excuse, making men unhappy... continue the spiral.

Feminism making the lives of young men hell is absolutely what's been going on. And it's making women unhappy too.

Feminism has long since reached the point that it makes everyone unhappy, but it punishes men, and lifts up women.

==

Other people are going to have to pick up the torch. I can't spend every morning making huge posts and digging up links that just get summarily ignored and cherry picked while being accused of cherry picking myself. I got other shit to do that's actually relaxing.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Then you are not a nationalist by your own standards. Not to mention, Israel is a pretty egregious example of a welfare state, anti-gun and many more things you claim to be against.

I honestly suspect the dude's either a Rino (or may God forgive me; a neocon.) Or a shitty attempt at a psyop on the board by an SV leftoid who thinks he can dupe us to shifting our views by appearing as the "reasonable conservative"

Which is just, lol.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

You have been given a whole slew of links supporting the position that modern feminism is terrible

Three in this one. One is a YT video and thus worthless. I addressed the other two. I have even agreed with some points you brought up, so I'm hardly dismissing every argument offhandedly.

I'm hardly declaring that feminism cannot possibly have any bad consequences. As it's a movement explicitly meant to uphold women's interests, it's natural that they could occasionally come at the expense of men. Sometimes it's legitimate (suffrage, protection from sexual exploitation and domestic abuse, and the Equal Rights Act), and sometimes it's not (Affirmative Action).

 

[LordsFire]

Three in this one. One is a YT video and thus worthless. I addressed the other two. I have even agreed with some points you brought up, so I'm hardly dismissing every argument offhandedly.

I'm hardly declaring that feminism cannot possibly have any bad consequences. As it's a movement explicitly meant to uphold women's interests, it's natural that they could occasionally come at the expense of men. Sometimes it's legitimate (suffrage, protection from sexual exploitation and domestic abuse, and the Equal Rights Act), and sometimes it's not (Affirmative Action).

Yeah, and this post has ten.

Your point?

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

Three in this one. One is a YT video and thus worthless. I addressed the other two. I have even agreed with some points you brought up, so I'm hardly dismissing every argument offhandedly.

Three in that one. Ten in this one. One in this one.

I even went out of my way and had the integrity to say when I had difficulty finding a solid position on the subject.

My links number fourteen total and you've addressed three and one of those addressing was a dismissal. And your only response link was from one of the most biased sources available.

Most of my links are from .org sources, several of which are left leaning, but there are several that are .gov and .edu, with a 'went free on YT last year' professional documentary not some rando on YT, and a YT to a channel with someone who lists and cites academic and peer reviewed papers (so you can find them) with one link being to a specific video, not some poorly researched neckbeard with five views.

It not like I linked Shoe's video on male loneliness, the response video to the massive amount of hate she received for pointing out men aren't doing well, or her are women okay video. All of which are basically just 'I noticed this shit and here's some kinda supportive evidence' but someone who, as I have repeatedly pointed out, uses actual science, with citations to make her points.

You have not engaged in good faith. You demanded sources and have basically dismissed, cherry picked, ignored the actual point or facts presented, or ignored the sources you wanted others to provide.

I'm done with you. Have a nice life.