Why do women copy men all the time?
It doesn't work ladies.
You can't pretend to be all independent and strong, but have a 92% preference for a dominant male partner.
I wonder why, for such a feminists era, these women always copy what guys do - just add some lipstick or tight shirts.
Men can be topless - we should be topless too!
Men can get blown up, captured, tortured and raped in war - we want that too!
Men get to be presidents - we want that too! Not that there isn't an entire country lead by a queen already!
Men have big muscles - we want them too!
Like that jelly sibling that hates you but wants all your glory. You know, Loki before he came to his senses -
Sexist 1960's ads? We can be sexist too!
Yes bitches. Yes you are.
F was my favorite though - he's pretty authentic!
Girls pants in C are dope
Yeah lol thats why I can't take them seriously lol
Right. Our genders are not equal, for reasons of balance.
Ying and yang.
If we as gals were meant to be men, we would naturally be men.
Did men go a bit far to overstep the balance? Yes they did, thats why society favors against the misogyny. Same with the fems.
Lol I dont get it - but I was raised by men so thats probably why.
I completely agree with you... but side note, I'm from the UK, our Queen doesn't actually have much power, we are lead by the forever arguing Parliament.
@sagevalentine
Lol we dont really have a president, we are ran by the forever arguing congress😂😂
The apple doesn't roll to far from the tree Mother England lol
hehe *fist bump
@MzAsh
I think I misunderstood -
"why are so many anti-feminists (against non dominant ideas,) combating (being against,) people who dont like dominant male ideas?"
We are anti-feminists, we combat those ideas because we are okay with male "dominance" as nature intended.
Our genders are ying and yang, balanced but naturally equal through our differences.
Dominance in regards to men, just means they are the first ones willing to take on all the dangerous, harder, or riskier things than their female counterparts, not lording over us misogyny style lol
Feminists have some weird fear that letting men be naturally dominant is going to plunge us into the stone age or something lol
@sagevalentine
Lol xD
Yeah its funny, the US is like Europe's wild teenage child ha ha
@MzAsh
Nah, the world is too advanced. Gender roles came from rural living, when housework was serious, more than cleaning and cooking. Children had a way high death rate, so a constant parent increased survivability.
But since we live in very different circumstances, they aren't necessary. But natural roles are. Families are still at risk from burglars, illness, disasters, poverty and urban life demands a lot of time.
Men are still dominant in taking on protecting their families, and working longer hours typically compared to their spouses to be adequate financially. Women are still more inclined to focus on caring for the children and home.
Instead of gender roleing, parents tag team.
But this isn't new. Once rural civilizations were well off, women pursued education, hunting, combat etc, and men took it easy, learning basket weaving and clay pot making as leisure activities.
Sounds like you are one of those princess girls who need a tough man to save your ass. Sad
@HeyThere94 sounds like you're a wimpy man that needs a loud, overweight, psychotic bitch to save yours
@HeyThere94
Right, not that I dont have 2 degrees, 2 jobs and make more money then half the men in my little city lol
Lol guys have apologized for me having to pay for the date because they couldnt afford it 😂
Im no princess baby, Im a queen with her own wealth and kingdom.
The men are just my concubines 😉
@dancing_in_nebulas
I was sympathetic to you until your last comment.
You kind of ruined it.
You claim to be a queen - where are your people? What is your form of state? Aren't you affraid that your "concubines" might revolt?
Let's play a game - name each and every one of your so-called "concubines".
Tell them what you think of them.
And then see if they leave you for being a cunt.
At the end of the day, people on the internet all prove to be cowards, and I don't reckon you to be much else. All bark, no bite. Queen my ass. Freddy Mercury was a thousand times the queen as you, and he had a prick in his pants.
@Benedek38
Right says the guy blowing an acronym out of proportion.
My home is my kingdom, my wealth is the abundance I have to support it physically, and wealth spiritually. A concubine was a sexual partner for a royal, which is how men constantly present themselves to me.
I dont take their offers, but until a king comes along, men are like concubines to me.
Its a sex heavy generation as Im sure you are aware. Why men are so concubiney these days lol I don't know.
And wtf is it with you guys thinking your approval of a person on here matters? You could die tonight lol your comment does not affect how richly I live my life lol
@dancing_in_nebulas
1) What acronym?
2) "A concubine was a sexual partner for a royal"
"Concubine: (in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives."
Do you consider your male sexual partners subservient to you? Do they have less rights? Lower status?
I somehow doubt any self-respecting man would describe himself willingly as a concubine.
"I dont take their offers, but until a king comes along, men are like concubines to me."
They are kings of their own kingdom. A wise queen would know that insulting a king means war.
"Why men are so concubiney these days lol I don't know."
They aren't, you just make up this fake reality in your head to justify your own promiscuity and inability to settle down, due to high expectation. Don't worry, honey - the wall will hit you likea truck. From queen to beggar in the matter of a few months.
I don't give a shit about your opinion either, if that makes you feel better.
@sagevalentine Another princess girl lol
@sagevalentine The last time I check, my girlfriend is not overweight
@Benedek38
1.) LOL my phone auto corrected to acronym.
Analogy is what that was supposed to read.
2.) Concubine is BENEATH the spouse.
Meaning not the royal equal.
Men who aren't kings act like concubines, mean they present themselves that way. Being inferior to the men who are actually kings.
No I dont think men are subservient obviously, or I wouldn't have called them kings as well.
But of course on here, men miss anything that is remotely praise worthy of them and attack women for the pettiest of things.
Lol its hilarious because Im known on here for my very sincere post about how honestly wonderful men are.
Lol
@dancing_in_nebulas
A man/woman, according to your analogy, is a king/queen on his/her own land. As such practically every man you meet is a king. Nobody is "beneath" anybody, and if that is your understanding of the world, I feel like your father didn't spank you long and hard enough to learn basic human decency. I'd offer to repair his mistakes, but I wouldn't touch you with a 30 foot pole. A principle of mine is "never touch women who call themselves queens, they are all crazy". Same goes for guys, by the way - except for Leonardo Decaprio. He's the king of the world.
"But of course on here"
On where? This website? You don't know anything about these people. You just ASSUME you are better. Get off your high horse.
"its hilarious because Im known on here for my very sincere post about how honestly wonderful men are."
Well, you certainly didn't demonstrate it here. On the contrary.
@Benedek38
Its just an analogy goodness gracious.
Not every person is kingly. Look at the men who beat their wives, use women for sex, neglect their children, the players, the fuckboys etc - likewise, look at the women who abuse their husbands, neglect kids, treat men only for sex - horridly unstable.
A concubine is a derogative term for someone who is just concerned about sex and superficial things.
www.google.com/.../define.php%3fterm=Concubine&=true
I dont know why there are men who present themselves such a way, to me they are a bunch of concubines figuratively.
Likewise there are kings lol
You just got way to sensitive about this.
If you're not a concubiney guy, dont be offended, and dont be offended that Im not fucking every guy or being with every guy who comes my way for being wise about a man's character.
Quit being so sensitive about nothing.
You said your sexual partners are not "kings".
If you consider THESE people - these wife-beaters, fuckboys, and deadbeat fathers - your sexual partners - since they are the ones not worthy of being kings in your mind -, I'd say that says quite a lot about you, too. Birds of a feather. But I wouldn't know, so don't get offended.
"A concubine is a derogative term for someone who is just concerned about sex and superficial things."
You DO know that the urban dictionary is written by non-professionals, right?
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concubine
Disregard that by this definition, men can't even BE concubines - are you married? Do you live in a polygamous relationship? Are you cheating on your husband?
If none of these are true - you are using the wrong word.
Let's just stick to fuckboys, players, or one night stands.
"I dont know why there are men who present themselves such a way, to me they are a bunch of concubines figuratively."
Adding "figuratively" to your sentence doesn't make it any less incorrect or sexist.
Imagine if your future husband said some day "she is my slave. But only figuratively!"
Members of a harem were by definition slaves.
Don't call people slaves if you don't want to get socked in the head. That's a useful rule to live by.
"You just got way to sensitive about this."
Maybe. Doesn't make you any less wrong or sexist.
"dont be offended that Im not fucking every guy or being with every guy who comes my way for being wise about a man's character."
I literally never said anything even resembling that.
"Quit being so sensitive about nothing."
Said the chick calling men sex slaves. Subtle.
@Benedek38
But I called men kings as well.
Your entire argument is invalid.
@Benedek38
Your stance:
Because she called men concubines, she thinks men are inferior sex slaves.
Her position: "I called men kings as well."
Your argument is invalid because if it were true, Id never address men in such a superior, pleasant way as kings.
Nice try though.
Check out my myTake while you try to dig yourself out of this one.
It got featured for being so heartfelt and honest.
A Man's Silent Sacrifice (Part 1) ↗
My kings.
Perfect kings.
I said "men". Not all men. "men" can mean SOME men. You called SOME men (who were clearly not sexual slaves) sex slaves.
You didn't address them in a superior way by the way, because king and queen are on the same level.
I don't care if you defend men, for all I care you could be the virgin Mary. All I am interested in is that you said something not very nice and really sexist. Again, I think you would be really offended if someone called you a sex slave behind your back, and you found out.
@Benedek38
1.) You only focused on concubines and accused me of being sexist. Now you just contradicted yourself by honoring that I also called men kings, which is not sexist, thus distinguishing two groups.
2.) King is superior to a concubine, which were the two groups being compared.
I categorized kings, good men, from concubines, superficial sex hungry men.
You know, so I dont end up with a jerk, as men mention on here a girl should be wiser about.
3.) It sounded mean, because its a realistic analogy. There are men who act like this.
So your argument is utterly invalid from all directions.
*You judged me based off your preconceived notion, probably from dealing with too many anti-male anything femi nazis, that spawned from your misunderstanding of a simple analogy.
Now you are trying to recover your mistake, but there's no recovery except a simple,
" my mistake for misunderstanding you."
I accept your apology.
God you are tiring me out...
1) You can be offensive and sexist while acknowledging values of the other sex.
Example: "Every woman I have met was subhuman trash, stupid whores. There are great, beautiful women out there, who I would be glad to live my life with - but the others are subhuman whores".
See, this sentence perfectly encapsulates what you said. You being appreciative of a group of men you deem "kings" doesn't mean you are free to call the rest of them "slaves". You don't get immunity from saying sexist things just because you were kind with SOME men.
2) "King is superior to a concubine, which were the two groups being compared."
Ok, I thought you compared women and men in terms of superiority. Miscommunication.
3) "It sounded mean, because its a realistic analogy. There are men who act like this."
Like slaves? I VERY MUCH doubt that. Again, there is a great way to test your hypothesis: Find a man like this, and tell him that you think he is a subservient slave. If he doesn't cuss you out or break your perceived relationship immediately, you were right. Otherwise, I scored. What do you think will be the score if we do it with every male acquaintance you think are sex slaves?
"You judged me based off your preconceived notion, probably from dealing with too many anti-male anything femi nazis"
No I didn't. I read your comments. I understood what your angle is. Doesn't change the fact that you were demeaning and sexist, and the sooner you apologize from all your male friends you called sex slaves, the sooner I will leave you alone.
Eh, who cares. You will probably block me anyway at some point.
I am just disappointed, because I thought for a minute that I've found a woman who is genuinely sympathetic to the cause of men (which you probably are), but then you went on to demean a large percentage of the male population, and are unwilling to even acknowledge it. It just makes me sad.
"Now you are trying to recover your mistake, but there's no recovery except a simple,
" my mistake for misunderstanding you."
I accept your apology."
Don't put words in my mouth. I will never apologize about something I KNOW I am right about.
@Benedek38
Its cool dude.
Apology accepted.
@Benedek38
Right.
Says the man making contradictive arguments and avoiding a peaceful resolve because hhe is to prideful to admit his faults.
Ill be the bigger person and say Im sorry for upsetting you with my analogy.
Go soothe your ego with that sir.
@Benedek38
1.) You said your sexual partners are not "kings".
I dont have sexual partners, you assumed that.
Men present themselves in a concubine manner, hence "men are concubines to me"
Same as the startement, "people are a joke to me." Referring to people behaving foolishly. A specific group, not all. Obviously.
Contex is key.
But then you said:
"A man/woman, according to your analogy, is a king/queen on his/her own land.
*As such practically every man you meet is a king"
Then you said:
*"I said "men". Not all men. "men" can mean SOME men."
So you accused me of treating some men "concubine group," with an insight to their superficiality, but stated before that all men are practicall kings, so its sexist to specify a group of men as not being kings. Then turned around and stated SOME men... and how others are not inferior, ie the concubines.
You can't change your stance mid debate or its a contradiction.
@Benedek38
I see the problem.
You took it as me having all these men as my literal concubines, ie sexual.
I used concubine to demonstrate hierarchy, and the perversion of sexual superficiality men present.
I get the confusion now.
Jeeesus... took you a while.
Didn't you notice I used the word "sex slave" about a hundred times?
Yes, I used the literal meaning of the word "concubine" - as in, an enslaved woman at the mercy of a warlord of sultan in his harem.
Pretty demeaning if you ask me. Almost as demeaning as using the n-word. A slave is a slave, no matter how you look at it. It is horrible either way.
@Benedek38
Not sure why you got so caught up on that part. Its just expressive of seeing a lousy group of men for what they really are.
Dont forget your "birds of a feather" comment, so you basically just called me the same lol.
Again, it was fine when men are kings and praised, but god forbid a girl calls the men out who aren't shit, then she is attacked for it.
doesn't call them out, she's attacked for it. States how she despises modern feminism, men still attack her calling her a needy princess.
It doesn't make any sense.
I explicitly said that IF you lay with shitty men, then that reflects bad on you, too. IF. (Obviousl I am paraphrasing).
But I never said you do, or that the ones you lay with are bad people. And I certainly didn't use demeaning, dehumanising terms to refer to you.
"but god forbid a girl calls the men out who aren't shit, then she is attacked for it."
I think you meant *are.
Anyway, I "attacked" you because you used a word I find despicable. You are free to criticize shitty male behaviour, I do too. And I told you: you are free to call them sex slaves - but only if you dare calling them that in their face.
Oppose feminism all you want, I will support you. You sound like someone I would normally enjoy a conversation with. I just don't tolerate what you did (I explained it).
Anyway, this is really pointless and exhausting.
Let's spend out time usefully.
Truce? :-)
And I will definitely follow your activity here, so we'll meet again, hopefilly more peacefully.
@Benedek38
I use a lot of despicable words.
Brace yourself if choose to follow lol.
Why wouldn't I anything to a man's face? I was raised by men lol, y'all aren't some alien creature who can't take a direct word. Men speak very bluntly.
But I won't promise it will always be peaceful.
"Why wouldn't I [say] anything to a man's face?"
Not a man's. A person's. Because these are people who, according to you, worship you and look up to you. I am just interested as to how long they'd remain interested if you told then what you think of them. If you beat a dog hard enough, he won't be coming home.
If you think yourself a queen, with someone you rule over, you gave to understand the principle of leadership. Supreme executive power derives from the mandate of the masses. As such, a vote of no confidence can destabilize a monarch.
In otherfact words - a true monarch is ALWAYS walking on eggshells to keep the public satisfied. Because they won't stay loyal if you mistreat them.
I hope you got the analogy.
"y'all aren't some alien creature who can't take a direct word."
If you were a man, right in front of me, I would have already punched you. I can take your words, but you have to live with the consequences. This is not a threat, this is reality.
I suggest listening to this interview. It does 't necessarily apply to you (I don't think you are crazy per se), but it is insightful nevertheless.
https://youtu.be/D-xf9hKfLws
"But I won't promise it will always be peaceful."
That is entirely up to the issue. You seem to have the constitution of someone who doesn't run from. a debate. That's more than I can ask for nowadays, with all the snowflakes.
@Benedek38
Dude they dont worship me. It was an analogy describing the group of men who are superficial, unstable, sex hungry, and lower than a king. Allegorically. Comparing concubines to kings.
CONCUBINES TO KINGS
It was so simple.
Me calling myself a queen just means Im stable and confident enough to differientiate the two.
I grew up in the hood man, where I had to fight men off from stealing my shit. Which means I've taken a hit from a man defending myself.
Im not some prissy suburban princesz who can't stand her ground, and yes I've called men assholes, fuckboys, losers, and bitches to their faces. Being honest, since thats the kind of people they were.
Like you are seriously over the top. Normal people reading this thread totally got it.
Howd you miss it?
@Benedek38
I can tell you are a smart guy, but you being to analytical about this whole situation is really intellectual over kill - and its like way off the actual point.
I am astounded by the epic offness of this debate lol. My male friend I was showing this to, asked me why I was defending an off topic point.
I told him because I was bored lol
I've called him a douche to his face for being one to his girlfriend and pushed him against the wall when he was acting like he was about to hit her.
He was drunk lol
" It was an analogy describing the group of men who are superficial, unstable, sex hungry, and lower than a king."
Then youI simply don't know what the word "concubine" means. Like, at all.
And once again, the analogy is bad and demeaning.
Concubine doesn't imply a lower or higher social status. It implies slavery.
I guess my point is. Stop. Using. Words. You don't understand!
"Me calling myself a queen just means Im stable and confident enough to differientiate the two."
And how does your confidence and stability give you the right to call people slaves behind their backs in a demeaning manner?
"I've taken a hit from a man defending myself."
I won't open a debate about whether the 40-70% more upper body strength, larger size and better spatial vision gives men the edge over an (I assume) untrained person (martial arts-wise).
Not bitch. Slave. You go and call a man your slave. Make sure to record it, I could use a laugh.
I am not missing anything.
The only one missing the point is you.
Simple.
Don't. Call. People. Sex slaves. Not hard to understand.
"intellectual overkill" was my sign in kindergarten.
But seriously, don't patronize me.
"My male friend I was showing this to, asked me why I was defending an off topic point."
That's kind of what I am asking too. Why are you defending an indefensible insult? Just retract it, and I'll leave you the fuck alone.
"I've called him a douche to his face for being one to his girlfriend and pushed him against the wall when he was acting like he was about to hit her."
And yes he didn't hit you.
Let me ask you something. Have you ever tasted the fragmented remains of your own teeth after a hook to the jaw? If not, then you have shit to learn about what it feels like to be hit. Just sayin'.
@Benedek38
Do you know what an analogy is?
Its like a metaphor.
If I say a ribbon tied the mountain, does that mean a ribbon is literally tied around the mountain?
Of course not. It may be talking about a river or a trail. It could even represent something entirely different.
Is a concubine the same status as a king?
Nope.
Are concubines depicted as sex slaves?
Yes.
This means I can use those characteristics metaphorically.
Men are concubines to me - meanimg those men are lower than kings and have a sexual presence about them, hence the context of concubine.
You dont understand expression, nor what an analogy is.
Have you ever read poetry or listen to a rap song?
Of course you have - so whats the problem?
Obviously Im not using the word describing an actual royal situation, none of them for that matter.
Its expressive of a girl who is confident, stable, and can tell the difference between good quality men and bad ones.
@Benedek38
Im going to pick you apart okay.
@Benedek38
1.) And once again, the analogy is bad and demeaning.
The analogy is fine considering the voice of the post. Just because it offends you, doesn't change its balance in the tone of the post.
Stop being butt hurt.
2.) Concubine doesn't imply a lower or higher social status.
Yes it does:
con·cu·bine
ˈkäNGkyəˌbīn/Submit
nounhistorical
(in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives.
3.) It implies slavery.
Not always. Voluntary and Involuntary.
"Involuntary concubinage has also been common, and can amount to the equivalent of sexual slavery." (http://www. newworldencyclopedia. org/entry/Concubinage)
4.)"And how does your confidence and stability give you the right to call people slaves behind their backs in a demeaning manner? "
Freedom of speech. Not all concubines are slaves. See source above. What gives you the right to talk down on me?
Im human too.
Lol
@Benedek38
5.) "I've taken a hit from a man defending myself."
Yes. Men are larger and hit harder. Not exactly picking fights with men for fun. Mostly self defense. No I dont provoke them, Im honest with them as they are with me.
6.) "You go and call a man your slave."
If he was acting like a slave to his boss or something I would. I guess if he is into role play lol.
Again, a concubine is not always a slave. Voluntary concubinage existed and men who are sexuallu charged in the aforementioned superficial way, present themselves allegorically like concubines.
So again.
Your arguments are invalid.
Its been invalid, but Im seeing how long you can keep your ego going on this one.
Intellectual Know It Alls, just dont know qhen to quit.
But I like having record threads saved to refer to for others daring enough to debate with me.
@Benedek38
So to update:
1.) Concubines are slaves.
You are falsified by the world encyclopedia.
2.) Concubines are not lower status.
You are falsified by the New World Encyclopedia
3.) You stated that some men present themselves in that poorer way (concubines vs kings allegorically.)
This supports my differing of the two groups, which shows one group is frowned on for their character, another praised for it. I spoke on the bad men in an honest way acknowledging their faults, and spoke on good men in a positive way according to their merits.
4.) You stated I was sexist, which was the fuel to your position to begin with.
Me upraising men as kings, in a positive light, falsifies your position.
5.) This weird childish stance about me not saying such blunt words to men in real life
Is falsified for lack of proof. You do not have enough facts from my real life to dictate how bold I am to others or not.
🤗
"The analogy is fine considering the voice of the post. Just because it offends you, doesn't change its balance in the tone of the post."
That was my point thought. That it is offensive. At this point, you might as well admit that you are an insufferable cunt, because you can't even give men the basic honour to retract your brazenly sexist statement.
"Concubine doesn't imply a lower or higher social status."
Should have clarified. Doesn't JUST imply.
"It implies slavery.
Not always. Voluntary and Involuntary."
Last time I checked, the Irish were enslaved with the fancy catchphrase "indentured servitude.
Just check the wikipedia page for examples of concubinage.
Search for the word "slave".
It appears in every single culture paragraph except judaism and Japan. And Japan DID have slave-like concubinage - the geisha.
So yeah. Apparently with the exception of ancient Hebrews every single culture treated concubines as slaves. Not a good tally.
""And how does your confidence and stability give you the right to call people slaves behind their backs in a demeaning manner? "
Freedom of speech."
True. Ironically something concubines didn't have.
Anyway, I think you know what I meant by "right" - moral rightiousness, not actual right provided by law. Stop being daft.
"Not all concubines are slaves."
Already explained why this is irrelevant, while true. Sure, not ALL of them, but 99.99% of them were.
"What gives you the right to talk down on me? Im human too."
No you are not. You are just a subhuman cottonpicking slave.
See? I can play the "freedom of speech" game, too. Wouldn't make me any less of an asshole if I was serious about what I just said.
""You go and call a man your slave."
If he was acting like a slave to his boss or something I would. I guess if he is into role play lol."
It wasn't a hypothetical though. I want you to do it. To see how people react to you denying their human rights. The word "slave" is a vile and tainted one, and of all people, you should know it the best. So yes, please, do it. Call a few men slaves, and see what happens. Go ahead.
"Voluntary concubinage existed"
In Rome slavery was voluntary. In the US, indentured servitude was voluntary. Doesn't change the fact that you would have no right of self-determination, and you would be tied by law and contract to your owner. That is voluntary concubinage. Sounds appealing? Doubt it.
"present themselves allegorically like concubines."
The word you are looking for is "affair".
Concubinage by definition doesn't exist in monogamous cultures.
"Intellectual Know It Alls, just dont know qhen to quit."
The irony is strong with this one.
"So to update:
1.) Concubines are slaves.
You are falsified by the world encyclopedia.
2.) Concubines are not lower status.
You are falsified by the New World Encyclopedia
3.) You stated that some men present themselves in that poorer way (concubines vs kings allegorically.)"
1) They are de facto slaves either way. A person in a hole with 20 foot tall walls is not necessarily a prisoner, but good luck explaining the semantics. Same goes for concubines.
2) Semantics. I worded what I said badly. Are you really going to look for petty mistakes? Have you ever heard of a "steel man" argument? Good.
3) I literally didn't state such thing. I never said they present themselves as lower class, because I fundamentally despise the idea of a social class based society. The only king of class I acknowledge is financial classes.
4) "Me upraising men as kings, in a positive light, falsifies your position."
You demeaning them as concubines and lower class (which I detest and never subscribed to, despite your false claims) is sexist. You can't choose to be selectively sexist - sexism is sexism.
5) "This weird childish stance about me not saying such blunt words to men in real life
Is falsified for lack of proof. You do not have enough facts from my real life to dictate how bold I am to others or not."
I am not even sure what the fuck you are talking about here.
@Benedek38
A.) "That was my point thought. That it is offensive. At this point, you might as well admit that you are an insufferable cunt, because you can't even give men the basic honour to retract your brazenly sexist statement. "
It is offensive to you because you missed the point of the expression.
You went off on an illogical tangent because of your own personal offense.
Comparing a group of people to concubines, because thats how they behave, is just a creative analogy.
Calling me a sexist cunt without any proof of a sexist statement, is just being illogically rude, and shows your loss at this debate for not being able to prove anything, other than your misunderstanding of expression and being offended due to your misunderstanding.
Referring to me as a cotton picking slave, would be racist, since you based it off my race, though I am not a slave, nor have ever picked cotton.
Lol see how this works?
You lost control of your emotions and dug yourself into a hole.
"It is offensive to you because you missed the point of the expression."
All evidence to the contrary.
"Comparing a group of people to concubines, because thats how they behave, is just a creative analogy."
Again, would you be OK with me calling women slaves because as you pointed out so aptly before, they tend to behave more submissively? Would you support me in calling most women slaves? Somehow I doubt it.
"Calling me a sexist cunt without any proof of a sexist statement, is just being illogically rude"
I repeat myself. You. Compared. Some. Men. To. Sex slaves. End of story. You were sexist.
"Referring to me as a cotton picking slave, would be racist, since you based it off my race, though I am not a slave, nor have ever picked cotton."
Just like them men you talk of aren't concubines. Capiche?
But since you don't believe me when i say you were sexist:
"until a king comes along, men are like concubines to me"
In other words, all men are subservient to me until I find my king.
^That's called sexist. Particularly female supremacy. The fact that you mention "kings" as these unicorns of the male species doesn't excuse what you said. Again, if I said all women are whores until I meet the one, I would be sexist. Same thing here.
@Benedek38
B.) You contradicted yourself, as usual, regarding slavery and concubinage.
* You stated it is slavery
then
* Honored that it was voluntary.
Lol, which totally killed all your its so terrible slavery fire. Some people wanted to do it.
Men in the analogy voluntarily present themselves that allegorical way. Why they want to be that way I dont know lol
Concubines are known for the sexual aspect and being a lower status than a king, so it just fit the analogy.
Your being upset about it, is a matter of your own persona.
As I said, you missed the point.
You confirmed that by stating YOUR point was that you found it offensive.
Why not just state you found it offensive personally. Would have avoided this unnecessary discussion lol
If you are offended because you can't understand expression within an analogy, thats lack on your part.
Some people struggle with poetic comparisons so itd make sense.
What Im confused about is why you aren't being positive towards me for calling men kings.
This makes your sexist stance invalid.
1.) You acknowledged that there were two groups, even speaking on the immoral character of the concubine group, ie players etc.
Which means you accepted the "king" group.
So how am I sexist when I acknowledged mens in a positive manner as well?
Answer that question.
You DO realise voluntary slavery exists, right? Mousetrap effect. You walk in, you never walk out. Back in the Roman times the majority of slaves sold their freedom for financial well being (not starving to death).
"Some people wanted to do it."
If the alternative is death by starvation, you are willing to do a LOOOOOT of things.
I have no patience for your twisting of words and your condescending remarks. At the end of the day, I know I'll be right, and you'll delude yourself into thinking you were, too. The only thing objectively true here is that you were sexist. If you don't want to admit it, that only reflects bad on you. I am done with this shitshow.
@Benedek38
Of course you are.
But walking away just means you were incorrect this whole time.
"How am I sexists when I called men kings as well?
Yeah. Id walk away from the shitshow, except you're covered in it.
But as I said before.
Apology accepted.
❤
"So how am I sexist when I acknowledged mens in a positive manner as well?
Answer that question."
This is the last question I answer, so open your metaphorical ears, I won't repeat again.
Analogy.
I say: "All women are whores, except a few that I value greatly"
This splits women into two halves. Inevitably everyone not fitting in the "valuable" set will be in the "whores" set. This is both generalization AND offensive.
"BUT I PRAISED SOME WOMEN FOR BEING VALUABLE!"
Yes, but I also called the majority of them whores.
You can't use your appreciation for a small percentage of men as a blanket to excuse your sexist bullshittery. Sexism is not a checkbook where positive and negative discriminations even out. You either are sexist, or not.
@dancing_in_nebulas don’t mind @benedek38, his only interaction with women comes in the form of argument. He’s just super lonely. Although his username Benedek does broadcast he’s just being a dick.
@Benedek38 This time I'm removing your reply. You can disagree and debate, but name-calling and ad-hominems are unacceptable.
@ericclayton You two like ganging up on users you don't like, don't you? I guess I should feel privileged - after all, I did garner the attention of TWO butthurt mods at the same time!
Delete away, buddy. Delete everything you don't like! Abusing your power is fun!
Though I am not sure what violation did I commit this time. I used a word meaning "female dogs".
by the way since you are here to help the community, would you mind explaining to me how I can report abusive moderators?
@ericclayton Oh, and did I mention SHE was namecalling too? Why didn't you remove HER comment? What happened to consistency?
@Benedek38 I'm done with you.
Those pics seriously XD
I've seen some before on internet. Though I don't really get what they want from them. If they're against sexism it's a bit dumb to do it but in a reverse ways. It doesn't make it better.
Yes, I have seen them. Why would we vote on each of them?
Yay let’s take sexist adds from the 60s and re make them, just as sexist though still just as terrible as ever, what’s the point of these to prove women are now as sexist as men in the 60s?
Tights are fine
Not even gender related. More guys should give them a try. Very comfy in winter and for workouts.
Opinion
7Opinion
I wonder if in 30 years we'll be making fun of the ridiculous double standards and misandry in meainstream media.
They work less because men aren't as attracted to submissiveness as women.
These are weird Haha not really a fan of any of them
Just think that out there somewhere there's a parallel universe where these ads were very much real and someone has created female versions to illustrate a point.
The first one is kind of creepy but is showing that either way oppressing on or the other gender is wrong.
Uh, ever since Married With Children all men are looked at almost like they are obsolete. SAD
Sounds like my household. My girlfriend is the "male" in the relationship
Never seen any of these but they're funny
That ketchup ad lol
Hahaha this is amazing
Lol. There are tons of these in pornhub🤣
It kinda is similar. The guys get grounded for being a bad boy. The punishments are just... as imaginative as anyone can ever be🤣
woman's world is never be truly
Yeah, people had a sense of humour in those days.
The ketchup
I couldn't care less
Nice try.
boring dude..
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions