Holidays 
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 
Why are some men so threatened by women’s empowerment?
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
+1 yMost men aren't scared of the empowerment at all. In fact, I think most would be on your side if it weren't for the crazies that downright hate every man they come in contact with. It's an important conversation to have. Everyone deserves their equal opportunities, but we also have to be realistic in what we are asking for. Its impossible to change everyone's perceptions, therefore you can not expect %100 equality as an outcome. Its just not realistic. That's like me asking all people to start treating all black people equally lol. Can you really ask people to change their perceptions on a race or gender? You can... but it doesn't mean they'll comply. People have their perceptions and opinions on race, gender and sex. You can't force them to change. They'll just hide, and they'll continue to control what they can. There will always be some older guy who thinks he's above you in some way. Being a woman is no different. It doesn't mean you stop fighting, but it does mean you need to be realistic. You need to walk in understanding and less in anger. I've never felt such tension between men and women in my lifetime. Its so sad to see. I get that there needs to be change, but the interactions between men a women are crumbling. Not everything will go your way and that's just the facts. So I would hope that most would stop being so angry and continue to progress with a light hearted approach. Because in most peoples minds, its just been toxic. Im really hoping that I don't get a reply from an angry lady. Im down for a discussion but not an argument. It's fruitless...
00 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
- +1 y
strawman fallacy much?
We aren’t threatened by women having equal rights. Most of us agree that women should be treated equally as fellow human beings. What most criticism is actually directed at is the hypocrisy shown by the proto totalitarian groupthink known as “social liberalism” which claims to “fight for equality for all” yet frequently ostracizes and scapegoats various groups like Asians, whites, short people, Christians, men and the successful. How can a movement claim to fight for equality when it frequently ostracizes and scapegoats certain groups?
You are probably asking “If that’s the case why do I receive so many blue downvotes even for a positive message?” And my answer to that is that perhaps you posted something that didn’t sit well with many people on this site and considering how Girlsaskguys is a relatively small virtual community, it’s easy to remember who said what. 4 downvotes isn’t a lot though, I recall another user on this website who’s opinions usually get around 20 or more downvotes but only because this individual has made some controversial remarks that didn’t sit well with many people.38200 Reply- +1 y
couldnt have said it better my self.
- +1 y
So in other words, they didn't really dislike my comment - they are being haters because they didn't like something else I said in another thread, perhaps. And that's fine. They are welcome to dislike what I have to say. I know I don't always say what some of them want to hear. I say what needs to be said.
- +1 y
"Social liberalism" sounds like a watered down version of "Cultural Marxism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlrpSpwxgWw - +1 y
This user's comment is spot on, including the part about the down votes. People remember things, and they see through dishonesty.
- +1 y
I said you are dishonest because you routinely post things here that demonstrate your contempt for men but then turn around and say you support men and women equally.
- +1 y
Look, I'm not here to argue with you and you're not going to change my mind about you. I have read enough of what you have written here to see though it. I'm going to leave it at that.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Social liberalism goes by many names depending on the country. In Germany it’s called “left liberalism”, here in the US it’s called “Modern liberalism” and so on.
- +1 y
Correction; they way you're using the term, it sounds like a watered down version of "Cultural Marxism".
- +1 y
11:20 in the video explains why the notion that it's a "proto totalitarian groupthink" that "claims to “fight for equality for all” yet frequently ostracizes and scapegoats various groups like Asians, whites, short people, Christians, men and the successful." is really just fear mongering.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s only fear mongering/slippery slope as long as it’s something you disagree with.
You know what actually is fear mongering, when people assume a recently elected president is the antichrist, doesn’t matter if it’s a democrat or republican president.
Speaking of which, did you call it “fear mongering” when people assumed Trump would be the next Hitler back in 2016?
- +1 y
Damn son... NAILED IT !
oh look two down votes though hmmm weird both female :/ - +1 y
@standingUP Thanks and yup there’s always some folks who aren’t ready to hear the truth.
- +1 y
Amen for tuth'n it up …. well deserved Sir.
- +1 y
It's fear mongering if your blowing something out of proportion to make it seem like more of a threat than it is and it's a red herring, a strawman and guilt by association when you try to cover your ass by conjuring a bogus case of partisan bias bringing up incidents of fear mongering by the leftists. Yes, saying Trump is the next Hitler/the antichrist is fear mongering; it doesn't change that pretending some whiny college kids who take their ideology to an extreme makes that ideology a proto-totalitarian one that "often" ostracizes certain groups isn't also fear mongering.
- +1 y
@MzAsh If that's the case then stop trying to convince me you are not a misandrist. It's not going to work because I have seen more than enough of your posts here to know you have some serious bitterness issues toward men and you routinely post things that are antagonistic to men. It's very clear in how you choose to word things. You are very consistent in that. Please just stop trying to justify it.
@ADFSDF1996 - 35 up-votes and counting. That may be some kind of record. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
Fear mongering would be if it had no basis in fact. Which it actually does but since your political biases cloud your reasoning, you automatically assume otherwise. It really doesn’t take the smartest person in the world to to analyze that the more radical members of the modern liberal movement exhibit elements of proto totalitarianism. They frequently accuse Whites, Asians and the religious of being “privileged”, they use political correctness as a form of censorship to silence opposing views and they function under a group think
By the way, surely you don’t expect an obvious left wing YouTuber like “three arrows” to acknowledge the extremist elements on his side of the political spectrum. So ironically it’s actually you trying to cover your ass via an argument from authority who happens to be a false authority. - +1 y
Fear mongering often has a basis in reality that's completely blown out of proportion (which is exactly what you're doing) and I actually pointed out where in the video where this politically biased youtuber pointed out that there were extremist elements among the left. Every movement has extremist movements but that doesn't make the ideology behind it (like Social Liberalism) "proto Totalitarian". Everyone sees things through a lens and no lens is 100% transparent but you let your political bias dictate your perception and completely contort and distort information to make it fit your pre-conceptions.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Was it fear mongering when George Groz and Albert Einstein tried to warn the world about what the third Reich was to become?
www.google.com/.../%3famp=true
www.google.com/.../...ter-warns-anti-semitism.html
“Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - +1 y
No, because the anti-semitism and militarism were core beliefs of the Nazi ideology, not ones held by a few members overconfident in their own views. But if you watched the video, you'd know it WAS fear mongering when the Nazis claimed that there was a coherent subversive movement by the left and the minorities in the country to bring down the German state which helped them rise to power. You don't want history to repeat itself, call out this kind of fear mongering when you see it touted by right wing groups.
- +1 y
And no, that last statement doesn't show that I have a "political bias" and that it's "only fear mongering if those I don't agree with do it"; it just that it's in the historical context of the rise of the Nazi regime.
- +1 y
I don't deny that there are leftists who use and have used fear mongering to attain a political end; it doesn't change that's what you are doing now.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator I don’t know how that’s relevant to my previous reply but you do realize there were various militant left wing movements sine the end of WWI right? The Weimar Republic managed to defeat the sparticists (German equivalent of Bolsheviks) but that didn’t stop other militant left wing groups from propping up afterwards. What ultimately happened was that in the process of preventing those militant left wing movements from taking over germany, the Nazis turned out to be hypocrites.
And no I’m not fear mongering. What you’ve you’ve been doing is distorting what I originally said to make it seem as if I’m fear mongering, all my original comment did was point out the obvious extremist elements within the modern liberal movement. It’s no different than calling your content on this site “communist propaganda” just cause I don’t agree with it. - +1 y
Yes, I know that there were left wing extremist movements but the Nazis still blew the threat posed by them out of proportion and claimed that they were part of a mass conspiracy (contrary to your claims, fear mongering can have a basis in reality). For example, while it is true that there are people who adhere to the ideology of "Social Liberalism" that take it too far and ostracizes straight white males, there are people who use this to portray Social Liberalism as a "Proto Totalitarian" ideology.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The so called “conspiracy” that the Nazis believed the German communists were a part of was not the only reason why they opposed the German communists. The other reason was that they were the only other party that actually had a chance of taking power in Germany. The only “conspiracy” militant left wingers in Weimar Germany were inadvertently a part of was that the Soviet government was willing to collaborate with them.
And the thing about social liberalism is that it’s largely dominated by radical individuals who advocate proto totalitarian policies. So yes, you’re right that social liberalism on it’s own isn’t extremist but social liberalism has become tainted by extremist elements, distorting it’s original ideas. - +1 y
And the Nazis also associated them with "international Jewry". Social Liberalism has members who take things too far (i. e. is "tainted" by them but this is true of every ideology) but it isn't "dominated" by these individuals; this is just fear mongering.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Yes but anti semitism has been around long before the founding of the Nazi party.
When many of the spokespeople of a movement are extremists, the intentions of the movement become suspicious. - +1 y
-They still incorporated it into their conspiracy theories.
-By "spokespeople" do you mean a few college students who's influence has been blown out of proportion by social media? - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It had more to do with scapegoating rather than some bogus conspiracy theories.
No, I’m talking about the “influential figures” such as Valerie solanas, Julie Bindel, Clementine Ford etc. - +1 y
-You can contrive conspiracy theories around a scapegoated group; the two are not mutually exclusive. Those individuals are well known but they haven't been elected by Social Liberals to represent them so again, you're just knit picking to portray a group as 'Proto-Totalitarian'.
- +1 y
I mean if that would make a group suspect of being proto-totalitarian, you'd have a better case for claiming that the Republican Party is proto-totalitarian because they elected someone who has frequently claimed that people who don't agree with his policies "hate America".
- +1 y
And no, I'm not using a "what-about-ism", I'm saying that if you set the bar for what would make an ideology suspect to being "proto-Totalitarian" that low, you'd have to consider an awful lot of ideologies proto-totalitarian.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It really is no different than the radical liberals scapegoating Asians, Whites and the Christians as “privileged”. Yet I don’t hear you calling that scapegoating a conspiracy theory.
Republicans aren’t the only ones who exhibit proto totalitarianism, Democrats, Green Party, communist party USA all exhibit proto totalitarianism as well by trying to modify the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments. - +1 y
More what-about-isms -_-
-Scapegoating and "conspiracy theories" aren't synonymous (even though they're not mutually exclusive) and why do you keep bringing up examples of the left doing what I'm accusing you of doing. This isn't about how the right or left fear monger, this is about YOU fear mongering. But now I know why you used the term "Proto-Totalitarian"; the proto lets you move the goal post wherever you want. - +1 y
You seem to be jumping back and fourth between "exhibiting proto-Totalilitarianism" and being a "Proto-Totalitarian ideology". Is Social Liberalism a "Proto-Totalitarian Ideology" because prominent members have exhibited extremist views and if so do other movements meet this criteria for the same reason?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
There is no whatsboutism, I’m simply pointing out that proto totalitarianism is a two way street. You calling my points “fear mongering” without saying why is what is known as the “just because fallacy”.
A proto totalitarian ideology isn’t a totalitarian regime, a proto totalitarian ideology could become a totalitarian regime if it takes power. And the number of proto totalitarian ideas exhibited varies from ideology to ideology. Some ideologies exhibit more proto totalitarian ideas than others. The proto totalitarian ideas a ideology exhibits the more proto totalitarian it is. - +1 y
I gave my reasons for why it's fear mongering; you're falsely portraying a few individuals as being representative of an entire group. And again, my question was where is the cutoff point for where an ideology would have enough proto-totalitarian tendencies to be considered proto-totalitarian and can this be quantified in any way?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s one thing for a few followers of a group to be extremists. You can easily dismiss them as exceptions. But when the most prominent figures and leaders of a movement are extremists, eyebrows are definitely raised.
- +1 y
A few journalists and actresses wouldn't represent the most prominent members or the leaders of the movement, elected officials would. BUT there is also data that indicates tendencies of certain groups that show if they as a whole exhibit bigoted tendencies (one example is the publication "From Pick-Up Artists to Incels: A Data-Driven Sketch of the Manosphere") which are way more reliable than the criteria you mentioned.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Liberal biased sources are not reliable at all. It’s no different than me referring to a article called “from sycophants to beta cucks: a driven sketch of the SJW” and calling it a reliable source.
Since when do politicians speak for a whole movement? Many politicians tend to change sides whenever it’s convenient for them. That’s why if you look at the political party affiliation history of several politicians you’ll find that for some years they were part of a left wing party and then they switched to a right wing party. And vice versa as well. Prominent figures can speak for their movements more than politicians can because they believe in the movement they are a part of.
And by the way if you want a more reliable source consider reading the “war against boys” by Christina Hoff Sommers. - +1 y
Claiming a liberal bias doesn't make it unreliable by default; that's just a cop-out on your part. If you want to discredit it, say what's wrong with their methodology. Politicians aren't a perfect representation but it's a far better representation than the individuals you mentioned.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator On certain occasions biases can skew results. You also fail to acknowledge that statistics are prone inaccuracies especially when they are inferential like the ones you used. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
A politician who constantly changes political parties cannot accurately represent a social movement. Since it’s hard to figure out what said politician truly believes in. - +1 y
Statistical tests being subject to inaccuracies doesn't automatically make them wrong. Again, how are they wrong? And even if they aren't perfect it's still a better representation of the movement than a few prominent figures would be. You wouldn't trust those politicians but not every politician who is a social liberal switched position and even so they would be a better representation of the movement than the individuals you mentioned.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s cherry picking.
I can argue that natural Blond hair is a predominant trait in Tokyo Japan after only counting the White tourists, White expats and Eurasians. Does that mean most Japanese are blond? Of course not. - +1 y
In that analogy, you're deliberately targeting a group in a country not part of the native population which is not what the authors of the study did. Now there will be some sampling biases when looking at an online forum that can skew your interpretation but it doesn't make it cherry picking. Claiming that a few prominent journalists like Valerie solanas, Julie Bindel and Clementine Ford expressing extremist views makes a group "proto-totalitarian" IS cherry picking.
- +1 y
I'm not saying the case for the manosphere and the opposition to womens' empowerment being toxic is fool proof, I'm saying the case for it being so is better than the case for Social Liberalism (including the empowerment of women) being proto-Totalitarian.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The point is that the authors of your study are targeting a select few individuals within a movement and are assuming that those few individuals represent the whole. That study also failed to acknowledge that there are many women who sympathize with many mens rights activists movements as well.
Julie blindel, Clementine ford are merely examples, there are plenty other individuals within social liberalism who share similar sentiments and also influence the social liberal community.
The case for Social liberalism being a proto totalitarian movement as a result of it being tainted by extremist elements is far more stronger than the case of the manosphere being “toxic” considering that the latter is based on pseudoscience which tries to claim that bad behaviors are uniquely masculine behaviors. While the former is based on observations by both left wingers and right wingers who realize that social liberalism has deviated from it’s original goals. - +1 y
Except you deliberately selected those members to make your case which someone could use to portray basically any ideology as "tainted" while the individuals selected for the study were randomly chosen (and no, they claimed that they were masculine behaviors, not that only men would engage in them so your staw-maning again) so no, the case for the manosphere being toxic is better than Social Liberalism being proto-totalitarian.
- +1 y
This is like trying to debunk anthropogenic climate change by saying temperature readings can be inaccurate and then saying the planets' getting colder because I and some other people experienced some cold days.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator “Specific” in this case would mean picking exceptions by saying those individuals are the only ones and they speak for all within said group. Which I didn’t say, I simply gave you examples to paint a clearer picture.
False equivalence/faulty comparison. Climate is not the same as analyzing groups of people or instances that can yield different results each time they are analyzed. It’s as pointless as expecting 30 degrees Fahrenheit to feel different each time it occurs in your region. - +1 y
Data gives you a clearer picture than examples and yes different regions experience climate change differently so the analogy is valid.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Data only gives you a clearer picture if it’s accurate and unbiased. Climate change compared to groups of people is like comparing apples to oranges.
- +1 y
An imperfect method of data collection doesn't make it "biased" and it will still give a better picture than a few prominent journalists and collecting data for both climate change and sociology is both subject to inaccuracies but it's still better than saying the world isn't getting warmer because it's cold outside. Again, how is the data biased (not imperfect, biased)?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s biased because it ignores many factors and is conducted by individuals who are politically partisan. Trusting a study conducted by politically partisan individuals is as foolish as trusting a study on race conducted by David duke and Don Black.
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Analyzing a group of people and acquiring inferential data from that group isn’t enough proof because it’s an oversimplification that doesn’t analyze every single aspect of the group. On the contrary, what you are saying is no different than assuming oak trees can also be identified as pine trees just because they both have green. It’s denying simple facts. - +1 y
Again, you're pointing out why it's subject to error, not biased and the authors having a partisan bias doesn't automatically mean the results do. For example, if someone posts a video from Fox News denying climate change, I won't/haven't just say the data is unreliable and the person giving the interview is biased. If their data set was inaccurate I'll explain what about their methodology would have offset their results and if it's imprecise, I'll provide another data set contradicting theirs that was obtained via a more sound method.
This is comparing apples to oranges: www.sciencedirect.com/.../S0308814696003391 and even if you were to point out flaws in the methodology of their results you'd be foolish to argue the opposite by saying "I and some other people felt healthier when we apples than oranges". No, the study isn't proof that oranges have more antioxidants than apples but it makes for a more compelling case for it than a few individuals being healthier after switching from oranges to apples. Similarly, looking at a randomly selected sample of a group is going to give you a better insight into the characteristics of its group-think mentality than a few prominent activists within that group. You want to argue that the method of data collection is unreliable, fine but then don't turn around and argue that Social Liberalism as a whole is Proto-Totalitarian based on a few extremist activists. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator the problem with your study is that it is a generalization and misinterpretation. it’s one thing to analyze every factor and come up with a general conclusion but when a study ignores a lot of aspects and also distorts/purposefully misinterprets findings, the study becomes unreliable.
A subject that can exhibit different results each time it’s analyzed compared to a subject that always exhibits the same result whenever it’s analyzed cannot be compared. It’s a faulty analogy www.txstate.edu/.../Faulty-Analogy.html - +1 y
First of all, how did it distort the results and second it's far more of a generalization and misinterpretation when you try to represent a few fringe members as being representative of a group. Again, I'm not saying that study proves that the manosphere is toxic given the method by which they collected their data; I'm saying that it makes a better case for that than a few fringe members does for social liberalism being proto-totalitarian; I'm sorry this double standard makes your own political bias stick out like a sore thumb. Also, depending on the growing conditions apples and oranges can have different chemical constituencies.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator You are clearly not understanding what I’m telling you. A biased person can conduct a study in a way that suits his or her agenda and or take results of a test and distort them to suit his or her agenda as well.
- +1 y
And you clearly don't understand that a person having a bias makes the data wrong by default and using a data set that is subject to SAMPLING bias is still a better representation of a group than a few journalists and activists. Again, your dodging that issue.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator You’re using an argument from authority to try argue your claims. Just cause one small group of researchers said something doesn’t mean it’s entirely or even half true. Does it mean it’s complete nonsense? Of course not, there’s probably some truth in the sense that every movement (whether left or right wing) has it’s toxic members but one must still take claims made by biased sources with a grain of salt.
- +1 y
I'm not saying that you shouldn't take it with a grain of salt, what I'm saying is that you should take a claim that a group is proto-totalitarian because of a few fringe activists and journalists with a block of it.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s not “just a few“ fringe journalists or activists, it’s the entire infrastructure of social liberalism that has been tainted by extremism. I’m not saying that social liberalism has always been extremist, I’m saying that it has become extremist over the years which is why many moderate liberals constantly make it clear that they aren’t a part of what has become of social liberalism.
- +1 y
How do you quantify how the entire infrastructure has been "tainted"? Do you have any data to back your claim or is it just conjecture and nit picking?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator You don’t need a group of nerdy “experts” to point out that Liberalism has two subgroups: moderates and social liberals (SJWs).
www.google.com/.../uk-politics-47006912 - +1 y
You also don't need experts to tell you that SJWs are but a tiny fraction of the Social Liberal movement itself and the two are not synonymous.
- +1 y
You're just trying to lump the portion of the left that focuses more on social issues into the extremist category.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Think of it like this, we can both agree that conservatives are more sensible, while the alt right are extremists.
Same thing can apply to the comparison between moderate liberals and what has become of social liberalism. - +1 y
Except just as not everyone who advocates for conservative values on a social level is a member of the alt-right, not every social liberal is an SJW (in fact only a small minority of each are). This conflation of social liberals with SJWs is just pretty much an attempt to silence anyone who tries to improve the situation of minority groups at a social level.
- +1 y
All under the guise of fighting "proto totalitarianism".
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator That’s similar what we were talking about last time, of course we can’t narrow it down to conservatives and alt right when it comes to right wing, when there are so many other ideologies on the right wing as well. Likewise we can’t narrow it down to moderate liberal and social liberal when there are so many other ideologies and on the left wing as well.
You are using a false dichotomy by assuming only social liberals “fight for minorities”. Besides the idea that social liberalism fights for minority groups is merely a facade to disguise their proto totalitarianism. It’s much like how many communist totalitarian regimes disguise their true governing system by including the word “democratic” in their name. Does calling yourself a “democracy” mean you are actually a democracy? Of course not.
By the way, if social liberals actually cared about minorities they wouldn’t be marginalizing certain groups, some who ironically happen to minorities as well. And I’m saying this as a minority. - +1 y
I never said that only social liberals focus on social issues but they are more inclined to do so than other sects of liberalism and within that sect SJWs are only a tiny fraction and labeling Social Liberalism as proto-totalitarian is just a way to disguise the suppression of minorities as a fight for freedom.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Sweeping generalization, how is criticizing extremist elements and hypocrisy the same as suppression? Might as well say criticizing conservatives is synonymous with communism.
Social liberals have a hierarchy of who’s rights they value the most to who’s rights they value the least. Blacks, Gays, atheists, Satanists and Muslims are at the top of said hierarchy. While Asians, Hispanics, Christians, heterosexuals and whites are at the bottom of said hierarchy. - +1 y
You're portraying the extremists as representative of the whole group and you're complaining about me making a "sweeping generalization"? Honestly, do you just find these terms online and try to slip them in to make yourself sound smart? Criticizing the extremist elements isn't suppression, portraying them as being representative of a movement campaigning to improve the social status of disenfranchised groups is trying to shut down the discourse about the status of said groups.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator SJWs are extremists. Of course we can’t say that every democrat or republican is an extremist because that’s not true but we can certainly say that the communist party USA and the KKK are groups entirely made of extremists.
You don’t seem to understand that there is a clear difference between moderate liberals and social liberals (SJWs) they are not the same thing. But since you are so adamant on using the no true Scotsman then show some data that says SJWs make up only a small percentage of the social liberal movement. - +1 y
And you seem to not understand that "moderate liberals" and "social liberals" are not mutually exclusive; moderate vs extremist and social vs economic are on two different spectra. Again, you're claiming that I'm using a fallacy while showing a lack of understanding of what that fallacy is because I never said that SJWs weren't social liberals. My stance is the null hypothesis; that social liberals like any group have extremist elements but that doesn't make them extremist as a whole. You want to say that these individuals are representative of the entire group, the onus is on you.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Except that the word liberal is a broad term that can represent both social and economic matters. And no, social liberals are not the same as civil rights activists.
raprehab.com/.../
www.google.com/.../ - +1 y
Then we're just arguing semantics if you're going to say that liberals who focus more on social issues are "civil rights activists" while the SJWs are "Social Liberals" (not that their ideology matches the description [https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Social_liberalism] )
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Social liberalism is a fairly new term.
- +1 y
By "recent" do you mean 127 years old?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Socialism isn’t social liberalism.
- +1 y
Yeah, the term socialism dates back farther than social liberalism (198 years). You seriously didn't know that the term "socialism" was used pre-1893?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator I never said otherwise.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator so your point is null
- +1 y
It's implied because you thought I was referring to Socialism vs Social Liberalism when I said "By recent do you mean 127 years old".
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator intentionally interpreting opposing points to mean something you want to believe is pretty much a strawman fallacy.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator And no, what social liberalism meant then didn’t stand for the same thing it stands for now.
- +1 y
It's clear you thought I was referring to socialism and ideas evolve over time but no, it doesn't mean "SJW (boogey feminist)" now.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator That’s you distorting my words to fit your narrative. I clearly told you Social liberalism does not equal socialism. And then I told you that the social liberalism of then is not the social liberalism of now.
To put it more bluntly, social liberalism may have once meant something good but in recent years it has been hijacked by radical elements. - +1 y
You clearly told me that after I said that the term social liberalism is 127 years old and you replied by saying social liberalism isn't socialism => you thought I was referring to socialism; you're just trying to backpedal. Social equality is good then and now and just because there's some SJWs/journalists who embraced this idea with their head up their ass doesn't mean it's hijacked.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The social liberalism I’m referring to is the social liberalism we have today. not Ignaz Jastrow’s Social liberalism.
- +1 y
The Social Liberalism that we have today advocates social equality and some SJWs blown out of proportion by social media taking that to mean ostracizing "privileged groups" doesn't change that.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Well, that’s your opinion.
- +1 y
It's your opinion that SJWs are representative of the ideology.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s your opinion that the social liberal movement of the today is the same thing it was during the civil rights era through the late 20th century.
But as always we can agree to disagree. - +1 y
Well the Null hypothesis is that it would have stuck to its' original ideology (and there were cooks within the movement as there are now, there was just no social media platform to blow them out of proportion) so you could say that they're both opinions but don't pretend that they have equal merit.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The SJWs of the 20th century were called communists not social liberals.
- +1 y
Correction: the rights' scapegoat of the 20th century were communists. In the 21st century it was initially Islamists but now it's SJWs. But just as now there were Social Liberals who took their ideology to the extreme who weren't communists.
- +1 y
But I noticed a trend:
-First the right uses a nuclear armed superpower to fear monger
-Then they use a hodgepodge of militants armed with guns
-Next they use a bunch of whiny college students with iphones
-Now they're using nebulous ideas like Cultural Marxism.
Seriously, you guys are getting rusty. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator And the radical left’s scapegoat in the early 20th century were the bourgeoisie, then the fascists in the quarter of the 20th century , then the capitalists during the cold war and now in the 21st century it’s the “privileged”.
“you guys” ad hominem and hasty generalization. No different than me calling you a commie just cause I disagree with you. I’m politically independent but even then it’s cliché for radical leftists on this site to think I’m a “far right winger” just because I’m not as far left as they are. While the far right wingers on this site think I’m a left winger just because I’m not as far right as they are. - +1 y
The RADICAL left has scapegoated but the MAINSTREAM right has been doing it as well (again having two sides doesn't imply symmetry) and because you're not a republican doesn't mean that you're not on the right (i. e. " independent" in this content) and more importantly, you are using the same variety of fear mongering tactics as them so it's not that I'm lumping you together because I disagree with you (more contrived partisan bias).
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Who are you to tell others what their ideology is? I could argue that you are actually a SJW pretending to be a social democrat, does that make it true? After all you are the same guy who went trigglypuff over another user’s profile picture.
I’ve made it perfectly clear in some of my previous posts that I’m neither fully left or fully right. I support some left wing ideas but not all and I support some right wing ideas but not all. And I also support some ideas that are neither left or right wing. - +1 y
You are trying to say that I'm telling other people what their ideology is when you're calling Social Liberalism "Pro-Totolitarian"? And
1. Saying that someone's on the same side of the political spectrum isn't saying that they're on the same side of the political spectrum.
2. Yeah I'm such an SJW for someone using an image just to piss people off (there's a difference between being politically incorrect and being an asshole).
And I explained to you that no one is "fully left or fully right" everyone has some views that are left and others that are right but that doesn't mean that they don't have a spot on the spectrum. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) It’s one thing to associate an ideology with certain traits and it’s a completely different thing to attach a unwarranted label onto someone just cause they don’t agree with you.
2.) Admiration for a historical figure is not the same as trying to piss people off. No different than assuming that a person who uses Karl Marx, Stalin or Fidel Castro for their profile picture are trying to piss people off.
2.) Your repugnance towards that user’s profile picture was a hasty generalization because you automatically assumed the man was just another SS war criminal. But if you had done your research properly, you would have realized that the soldier was no “fanatical SS nazi” but rather Lauri Allan Tourni ”the soldier who fought for three armies” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_Törni
False dichotomy again, that would only be true if a person has predominant beliefs of one side of the political spectrum. Not if the person’s beliefs are even from both sides and also has beliefs that can’t be grouped on either side of the political spectrum. - +1 y
1) And it's a far bigger stretch to label it (not associate it with) as "proto totalitarianist". Again, I wasn't lumping you in the same group because you disagree with them it was because you were using the same scapegoats (SJWs and trying to tie them to an underlying ideology vs just a bunch of nut jobs with their heads too far up their ass).
2) In his SS Uniform? FFS the user I was arguing with who was using his image was a self professed Nazi.
3) You honestly think you have an even split of views on both sides of the spectrum or are you just saying that to try to lend credence to your position as a "non-partisan bystander".
- +1 y
He was glorifying Larry Thorne and the SS; to pretend the two are exclusive is a false dichotomy. But if calling out a Nazi for doing that makes me an SJW, Then I'm happy to be an SJW. I mean look at how triggered these SJW snowflakes got about it:
www.flickr.com/photos/14358247@N05/8585888213/ - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) You still can’t grasp the fact that most liberals don’t call themselves “social liberals”, they simply call themselves liberals.
2.) I’m aware that he’s a Nazi but that’s besides the point. Lauri wasn’t actually a Nazi.
3.) It’s not a matter of me “thinking” it’s a matter of me knowing that my ideology can’t be grouped as either fully left wing or fully right wing especially since I have beliefs that are neither left or right wing in nature.
4.) The irony how once again you try to point out a non existent false dichotomy when you once again use a false dichotomy of your own. So just because Lauri Allan Tourni fought in the Waffen SS, he’s a “Nazi?” You must be one of those folks who thinks that every soldier who fought for Germany during WWII was a Nazi. For your information, Larry Thorne is also a respected deceased US serviceman who’s buried in Arlington National cemetery. Do you really think a fanatical Nazi would have been given the honor of being buried amongst other American war heroes who fought against the Nazis? - +1 y
1) I can grasp that (most liberals aren't concerned primarily with social issues) the problem is that you can't grasp that a Social Liberal isn't necessarily an SJW.
2) Pretty much no one has views that are exclusive to one side but that doesn't make them not on the right or the left. Again, your conjuring up partisan bias while pretending you have one in a vain attempt to add credence to your stance and discredit opposing views.
3) I didn't say that Larry was a Nazi, I said that nameiseric was using a photo of him in his SS uniform to glorify Larry AND the SS. So now you're using a false dichotomy and a straw-man. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) Except that Liberals are concerned with social issues as well.
2.) The political spectrum is a man made abstract concept, assuming people are either left wing or right wing is a false dichotomy itself that excludes independents and the apolitical
3.) So just because a Neo Nazi glorifies a historical figure, that makes said historical figure taboo? That’s as ridiculous as assuming that just because the Nazis believed in animal rights, we shouldn’t believe in animal rights. - +1 y
1) I said PRIMARILY concerned; again you're making a strawman.
2) Then anyone could claim to be "apolitical" or "independent"; still doesn't mean that you and the (self avowed) right aren't trying to tie the SJW boogey feminist to an underlying ideology to fear monger.
3) Again with these straw-men -_-
I said because he used an image of him in his SS uniform, he was glorifying both Larry AND the SS. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) Liberals put equal emphasis on both social and economic matters.
2.) They could claim to be independent and apolitical but most don’t because most people are either left wing or right wing. Independents and the apolitical are minorities. And both sides have scapegoats don’t act as if it’s only one side that has a scapegoat.
3.) And your point is? - +1 y
1). But they all don't put the same emphasis on one or another and social liberals put MORE of an emphasis on social issues (not that other liberals don't put any emphasis on it). How many times am I going to have to repeat this only for you to pull the same false dichotomy?
2) I already admitted people on the left scapegoat and fear monger. The issue is that's what YOU'RE doing here by labeling "Social Liberalism" as a proto-Totalitarian ideology.
3) My point is you were trying to compare me to an SJW for taking an issue with someone glorifying the SS. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) pointing the obvious is not a false dichotomy. Ever think that the social liberals put too much emphasis on social issues?
2.) If the “moderate” social liberals want people to stop associating social liberalism with proto totalitarianism, the burden falls on them to disavow the extremist elements.
3.) I agree that glorifying a group of war criminals is disgusting but it’s him exercising his first amendment. But then again you automatically assumed Larry Thorne was a “fanatical SS officer) which he wasn’t and why I corrected you. Say, would you have issue with someone Glorifying the Bolsheviks or NKVD? - +1 y
1. That liberals put equal weight on social and economic matters is blatantly false. Some put more emphasis on economic matters while others put more emphasis on social matters.
2. Every group has nut cases but if you want to make the case that they are representative of that group the onus is on you.
3. I never said he wasn't in his rights and even if Larry Thorne wasn't a fanatical SS murderer that doesn't mean that the user wasn't using an image in his SS uniform to glorify Larry and the SS (which, given that the user is a self avowed Nazi, is a pretty safe assumption). - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) False dichotomy, there are liberals who focus on both society and economy 50/50.
2.) Of course every group has it’s extremists but if a group lets the extremists be the spokespeople, the group’s reputation gets tarnished.
3.) For once we can actually agree. - +1 y
And yes I would have an issue with someone who glorified the NKVD? Yes.
Would I have an issue with someone who glorified the Bolsheviks, about to the same extent I would have issues with Contraboos (new term for people who overly romanticize those who fought against communists) glorifying the Royalists. - +1 y
1) Some do but you said Liberals (i. e. plural) so again your statement was false.
2) You can't prevent those people from speaking their views (and opponents of the group from blowing the extremists out of proportion) without violating their freedom of speech. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) It’s not just one liberal who concerns themselves with both society and economy. Hence plural “liberals”
2.) I never said anything about infringing on their first amendment, I said that any political movement should simply let it be known that said extremists don’t speak for the movement as a whole. - +1 y
1) And you said Liberals are equally concerned with the economy and social issues and this isn't true.
2) And every political group has extremists and a perceived failure to call them out may be reprehensible (ignoring how much the right have blown SJWs out of proportion), it doesn't make them "proto-Totalitarian". Saying it raises suspicions is one thing (I've only seen one Republican commentator decry the use of patriotic correctness but I'm not going to claim that means Republicans as a whole are proto-Totalitarian) but you need a lot more to justify that claim. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) Because many are.
2.) Just how the left has blown the “privileged” out of proportion. But that’s besides the point. You don’t seem to understand that both liberals and conservatives call out SJW political correctness because they understand that political correctness is censorship. - +1 y
1) But not all are
2) And you seem to have forgotten all about your previous statements referring to social liberals specifically; now you're just using terms interchangeably when it's convenient for you. - +1 y
It's not the left who has blown "privileged" out of proportion; it's the right and their cronies who have blown its use by the left out or proportion so they can slap the SJW boogey feminist label on and censor anyone who tries to redress issues of inequality at their convenience.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) Oskar Schindler was a “good Nazi” does that mean nazism wasn’t bad?
2.) And you seeem to have forgotten that I’ve made a clear distinction between social liberals and liberals
3.) Same way how the radical left likes pull the reductio ad Hitlerum to discredit opposing views. - +1 y
1) No it doesn't but it also doesn't mean that your claim wasn't an unfounded blanket statement; it was.
2) And you seem incapable of realizing many different subsets of liberalism with social liberalism being one of them and you're deliberate conflation between social liberals and SJWs is just a way to stigmatize people who advocate social equality.
3) And the main-stream right red baits and resorts to patriotically correct dialogue decrying people who oppose their views as "hating America". Both sides use political correctness but having two sides doesn't imply symmetry. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) It’s not a blanket statement when it’s true www.google.com/.../liberal
2.) You seem to forget that the term “liberal” is a general term
3.) Yet you leftists frequently call conservatives “intolerant” just because they believe in tradition. Not to mention that you can’t grasp the major influence SJWs have on social liberalism because of your political bias. - +1 y
1) That liberals as a whole put equal emphasis on social and economic views is blatantly false.
2) Yes and you still can't grasp that social liberals are a kind of liberals and social liberals vs moderate liberals is a false dichotomy.
3) Intolerance is intolerance whether it's "traditional" or not and when you're claiming that a few knit picked extremists are more representative of a movement that you oppose than data about a group that you support, you're in no position to contrive partisan bias; again, not saying the study is definitive, I'm saying it makes a better case for MRAs being toxic than SJWs make for Social Liberalism being "proto-Totalitarian". - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) You really can’t grasp the idea that liberalism is a very broad term can you.
2.) It’s not a false dichotomy, it’s an example. A false dichotomy only gives two options
3.) Everything you leftists don’t agree with is “intolerance”. Look in the mirror before calling others intolerant. I even wasn’t referring to traditionalism as a type of “intolerance”. - +1 y
1) I can but given that you think that they put equal weight on economic and social issues when there's a large section that primarily emphasize economic issues while others that primarily emphasize social issues it's clearly beyond your mental capacity.
2) Not in the way you used it; you're trying to portray social liberals as representing the extremist elements when social vs economic and moderate vs extremist are on different axis.
3) argumentum reductio SJWum; but hey what do you expect from someone who would compare an individual taking issue with a Nazi glorifying the SS to an SJW (and glorifying Larry and the SS are not mutually exclusive so that's not "Argumentum reductio Hitlerum"). And no one said traditionalism is automatically intolerance, just that they're not mutually exclusive. by the way, saying that there is a stronger case for the right being intolerant than the left isn't saying the right is necessarily intolerant; your straw men are too wet to burn at this point. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) Another false dichotomy, it sounds like touched are arguing just for the sake of arguing
2.) That would have been true if extremist elements hadn’t infiltrated social liberalism.
3.) “Reductio ad sjwum” isn’t a real fallacy. If anyone is setting up straw men it’s you since we can both agree that glorifying the SS is distasteful. But you also seem to have issues with anyone that isn’t a left winger like yourself. - +1 y
1) You said Liberals equally emphasize social and political issues to make a distinction between the mainstream liberals or moderate liberals and social liberals who focus mainly on social issues so you can label the latter as "proto-totalitarian" so you can associate all who advocate social change with this group without making a claim as audacious as saying all liberals agree with SJWs.
2) Every group has (or is "infiltrated by") extremist elements.
3) I seem that way to you because you ascribe anyone with differing opinions to your own as being intolerant to opposing viewpoints (which is obviously why you called social liberalism "proto-totalitarian in the first place). I have no issues with people decrying SJWs nor will I condemn people on the right who focus mainly on them without addressing the rampant use of political correctness on the right (I don't use Red Herrings); my issue is with people who portray SJWs as representative of Social Liberalism as a whole in an Orwellian attempt to discredit Feminism, LQTBQ rights, redressing racial inequality, etc... - +1 y
Of course you did try to cover it up with your little caveat about not being opposed to equal rights but sometimes you have to read between the lines to see peoples' true intentions.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) There you go distorting once again distorting what I originally said to suit your narrative. i never said that all liberals agree with SJW narrative
2.) I never said otherwise
3.) There’s your false dichotomy and strawman again. Your perspective is so clouded by your own biases that you are oblivious to the issues within many of those social movements you listed. Just because someone doesn’t agree with the hypocrisy and double standards exhibited by those social movements doesn’t mean they are “sexists”, “homophobes” or “xenophobes”. You say don’t have a problem with people criticizing SJWs yet have a problem with people who disagree with certain stances of those social movements. And no I don’t have any issue with leftism as a whole, I know not all leftists are extremists who are trying to infringe on peoples rights. I do criticize extremist elements that are trying to become spokespeople for the left wing in the same manner I criticize extremist elements that are trying become spokespeople for the right wing.
And there you go with your typical SJW narrative, accusing me of being intolerant just cause I have different political views. The problem is that you read between lines that don’t exist. It’s ironic how you think you see my “true” intentions when in reality you are deluding your perspective and give the impression that you are a SJW yourself. For your information, I actually do believe in equal rights. The only difference is that I know Equal rights and double standards are mutually exclusive, which is why I frequently criticize double standards. - +1 y
1) No kidding, I said you want to tie SJWs to an ideology without attributing that ideology to all liberals.
2) But for some reason that only makes Social Liberalism "proto-Totalitarian".
3) The only one making a straw man here is you (again using terms while displaying a clear lack of understanding of how they're used) and claiming my perspective is clouded by political bias is nothing more than projection on your part. The issue isn't that you're calling SJWs out on their hypocrisy, it's that your trying to portray them as representative of social liberalism as a whole so your claim that I'm accusing you of being intolerant for having different political views is JUST contrived partisan bias. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) Not all liberals share the same views
2.) Again, spokespeople
3.) It’s actually you who’s been using terms incorrectly. And yet again, spokespeople. - +1 y
But I will say your last statement clearly showed the Orwellian nature of so many in the SJW movement who try to blow SJWs out of proportion (key phrase; blow out or proportion, not just criticize) so they can silence any calling out of intolerance by pulling the "you call everything you don't agree with intolerant" card. And when you conflate SJWs with Social Liberalism, you draw the lines very clearly.
- +1 y
1) And yet you claim that they are equally concerned with economic and social issues.
2) Their spokespeople are their elected officials, the people you cite speak for themselves and how much fear mongerers have blown them out of proportion doesn't change that.
3) No, you have. You've repeatedly said that I made a false dichotomy or a straw-man when I didn't. - +1 y
But all that aside, do you have any statistical evidence (not spokespeople that you can knit pick) that the Social Liberal movement has become more radicalized vs it only seems that way now because in the present fear mongerers can use social media to blow the radical elements (SJWs) completely out of proportion?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Once again you contradict yourself by claiming that you don’t have a problem with people criticizing SJWs yet you are quick to call said criticism “intolerance” and you also try to add extra defense to your contradiction by saying I’m using a “you call everything you don’t agree with intolerant” card. Which is you basically subtly admitting that you are pretty much calling everything you disagree with intolerance. If I’m the so called “bigoted right winger” you seem think I am, then remind me when I said something racist, sexist or homophobic.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
1.) I didn’t apply a hasty generalization
2.) Again, many politicians pander to certain demographics
3.) Read your comment again
It never ceases to amaze me how you folks seem to think inferential statistics are all the proof you need to support your points. - +1 y
How many times am I going to have to say it's not the criticism, it's the conflation and all I'm saying when I said you;re using a “you call everything you don’t agree with intolerant” is no more me admitting that I call everything I disagree with "intolerant" than you claiming that I'm calling you intolerant because I disagree with you is admitting that you're intolerant; how the Anti-SJW rabbit hole has distorted your perspective is too obvious which is only affirmed by your last statement. Seriously; never heard of dog whistle politics?
- +1 y
If you did with your statement about Social Liberalism before this thread began and it never ceases to amaze me how so many people have perspectives so clouded by their bias that they think proclaiming extremists as the spokespeople of a movement they don't like makes a better case than statistics (even if they are inferential). This idea that SJWs = Social Liberalism is a false equivalence; get over it.
- +1 y
But perhaps I did over generalize; just because someone fell for intolerant propaganda doesn't make them intolerant themselves just like people falling for Nazi propaganda about how the Nazis were populists doesn't make them Nazis themselves.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator
@Ad_Quid_Orator the meaning of my points has no secret hidden additional meanings if that’s what you’re saying. Many times people who accuse others of dog whistling are simply distorting the original meaning of a person’s original message to suit their narrative.
If you actually knew anything about “statistics” instead of just using the word as a shield, you would know that statistics are merely frosting on the cake considering that most statistics are inferential as in they only analyze small fractions of a much larger group.
“ This idea that SJWs = Social Liberalism is a false equivalence; get over it.” And you assuming someone who disagrees with you is synonymous with “intolerant right winger” is a false equivalence. Look in the mirror. - +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Pulling the nazi card again? Wow, you are something else.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator I guess I shouldn’t call you a SJW, many people get deceived by SJW propaganda but aren’t SJWs themselves. Same way how people get deceived by communist propaganda but aren’t commies themselves.
- +1 y
An accusation of using a dog whistle on it's own doesn't hold much merit but there are tell tale signs that give it away (like calling social liberalism proto-totalitarian) and if you knew anything about statistics you'd know that they are more credible than knit picked conjecturing about how a movement has been hijacked. Also, this claim that I'm labeling you as an intolerant right winger "because I disagree with you" is just an Orwellian attempt to contrive partisan bias using stereotypes to attack the character of those posing dissenting opinions without addressing the argument itself. Instead of providing data that shows that the Social Liberal movement has become more extreme over time, you just claim that I'm intolerant towards those with opposing beliefs. You know what I was wrong, you aren't opposed to SJWs because your intolerant or have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda, it's because you've seen your reflection and you don't like it so you just project it on others (it's blatantly obvious when you say "Pulling the nazi card again? Wow, you are something else." after you've brought it up so many times in this discourse).
- +1 y
And to clarify; attacking the character of the opposition in and of itself isn't an Orwellian tactic if you can justify the claim (such as if the individual in question tried to portray the extremist elements as the spokespeople of a movement like Feminism in a blatant attempt to discredit it) but contriving partisan bias and pulling the "you're just saying I'm intolerant because you disagree with me" trope are just vain attempts to silence dissent by using stereotyped politically correct arguments.
- +1 y
As for the Nazi comparisons:
-You opened up that can of worms when you brought up how Einstein warned about the Nazis
-You swallowed it when you compared me to taking an issue with nameiseric's profile picture with triggly-puff.
-Now you're projecting because you can't own it. - +1 y
And as for the video I posted, it was to draw a direct link between a novel Nazi talking point (vs a tactic they used which has been used by many authoritarian regimes) and your conjecture. Cultural Bolshevism -> Cultural Marxism which you just watered down to get to your interpretation of Social Liberalism vs what you did (making comparisons in an implicit attempt to attack that character of the other side).
- +1 y
You can accuse me of being blinded by Partisan bias but when you claim that a group you don't like is proto-totalitarian because there are extremists in that group when the same can be said of any other group, it's clear you're just projecting.
- +1 y
And as for me falling for Communist propaganda; the difference is that you used Nazi propaganda claims to make a case that they were ambivalent; I never used communist propaganda and to clarify debunking claims made about the USSR to justify imperialist/militarist policy during the Cold War is not falling for Communist Propaganda.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator You know, it’s obvious this argument is going to go on and on. And quite frankly I’m getting real sick of having to scroll down all your replies just to read your latest replies. So I’m just going to end this argument by saying that your whole premise is nothing more than you distorting my original words to suit your pseudo-intellectual biased narrative. Instead of calling other people “intolerant” look in the mirror and realize that you are the one who can’t tolerate different views. So if anyone is projecting, it’s you.
All you’ve proven is that you are too stubborn considering that you’ve been spouting off the same arguments for almost a month, which I’ve constantly refuted. - +1 y
Actually, you claimed that SJWs represented social liberalism as a whole and when I called out that this was just knit picked conjecture you tried constantly to deflect it by misrepresenting what I said and in an utterly pretentious matter, claiming that you refuted the argument.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Kind of ironic considering that you initially assumed “social liberalism” was a derogatory name like “cultural Marxism”.
- +1 y
Because you called it proto-Totalitarian ideology.
- +1 y
But lets' just leave it at this. Many conservatives in the US use the rights' version of political correctness called patriotic correctness where they make claims that if you don't agree with my views then you hate America and you should just get out. I'll call that attitude out for the Orwellian behavior that it is but I can also recognize that they are a bunch of boneheads who are too confident in their own views and I wouldn't claim that there is some kind of Proto-Totalitarian ideology behind their attitudes; the same applies to SJWs. Yeah, they're a bunch of idiots who are too confident in their world view and take it too the extreme but that doesn't mean there's some undercurrent proto totalitarian ideology behind their attitude.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Like I said on multiple occasions already, I know both sides have their extremists. But in regards to who utilizes political correctness more often, it’s the definitely the SJWs. While, the “political correctness” you attribute to conservatives isn’t political correctness but rather a false dichotomy on their part.
- +1 y
SJWs do it more often because they're pretty much defined by this kind of behavior but that's not to say that Social Liberals do it more often than conservatives and when you label a kind of discourse taboo and offensive to shut down dissent (many conservatives do when you make claims that certain wars weren't fought for our freedom).
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It depends what wars.
- +1 y
Like Vietnam and the Iraq war.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator With the power of hindsight many people on both sides of the political spectrum will acknowledge that those wars were unnecessary.
- +1 y
But many on the right who supported those wars when they were going on used those kinds off accusations. And Political correctness can be a false dichotomy; like if you disagree with me then you're a racist (left) or you hate America (right).
- +1 y
So just because some boneheads are too confident in their own views doesn't mean that whatever sub faction of conservatism or liberalism (including social liberalism) "proto-totalitarian".
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Most dictionaries define political correctness as “avoiding the use of certain language to offend specific groups in a society.” So political correctness can’t normally be attributed to conservatives. What conservatives exhibit when they unjustly label any criticism as “treason” is known as “blind patriotism” not “political correctness”.
- +1 y
Well that's why what they do is often referred to as "patriotic correctness" but either way it's still an Orwellian tactic.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Seems more of a mockery.
- +1 y
Well some Orwellian tactics are plainly stupid so they aren't exclusive to one another but the point remains that every faction has people who use such tactics to silence dissent but that doesn't mean that attitude is part of a "proto-Totalitarian groupthink" it just means that individuals get too confident in their world view.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The reason why I call these extremists a proto totalitarian groupthink is because they primarily rely on censorship and forced conformity. So while they may seem too confident in their worldview, they also expect the world to follow their ideas.
- +1 y
That's true of everyone (SJWs or 'Muricans') who uses political correctness (or false dichotomies) to silence dissent. They want others to conform to their views which is why they try to censor opposing viewpoints but those individuals don't make social liberalism or American conservatism 'proto-totalitarian'.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator I never called liberals proto totalitarian. Besides, no liberals actually call themselves “social liberals”. Even SJWs/“SocJus” call themselves liberals even though they aren’t actually liberals.
- +1 y
But I was referring to Social Liberals. You keep stating that your not calling all Liberals proto-totalitarian but that doesn't mean you're not generalizing about social liberals because you're trying to conflate them with SJWs.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Even people who are referred to as social liberals, don’t call themselves social liberals.
- +1 y
That doesn't make it a "proto-totalitarian ideology" or mean the narrative that it's been corrupted by the purple haired boogey feminists has any merit. It just means that not everyone agrees with the label that's most people think describes them and again, this isn't something unique to social liberals.
- +1 y
And by "corrupted" I mean to the extent that other political movements are corrupted by boneheads.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The point is that it’s debatable whether or not “Social liberalism” is an actual movement or just a term.
- +1 y
It's a term that describes an ideology but there's not a collective "social liberal" organization (let alone a proto-totalitarian groupthink).
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Civil rights activists aren’t called “social liberals”, neither are liberals or socialists. “Social liberalism” is more of a general term that can have either positive or negative connotations.
- +1 y
Social liberals are a kind of liberals and whether or not a civil rights activist is determined by whether their economic ideology is liberal or conservative; the terms aren't synonymous nor mutually exclusive BUT it's not synonymous with SJWs either.
- +1 y
Nor is it basis for the Orwellian behavior exhibited by SJWs. What is behind it is overconfidence in their own views and this is by no means exclusive to SJWs and if you think this behavior makes Social Liberalism proto-Totalitarian but not other ideologies then your political bias has skewed your perspective.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator That’s because social liberalism isn’t a movement itself, it’s a general term applied to individuals with certain types of political views. Liberals can be called “Social liberals” but that doesn’t mean they are proto totalitarian. While SJWs can also be called “social liberals” but are a proto totalitarian groupthink.
- +1 y
OK, so we're in agreement that Social Liberalism isn't in and of itself a proto-Totalitarian ideology. But would you consider 'muricans' (conservatives who engage in Patriotic Correctness) to be a proto-Totalitarian groupthink?
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator I consider both the alt right and social liberal SJWs proto totalitarian groupthinks.
- +1 y
OK but I wasn't talking about the "alt-right".
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator The kind of “conservatives” you have in mind aren’t exactly that relevant to society anymore. They may have been a proto totalitarian group think during the McCarthy era but nowadays most of the folks who like saying things along the lines of “Murica! don’t like it then leave!” are usually joking or being satirical of American stereotypes.
- +1 y
No, the president of the US has engaged in this type of rhetoric and even though the cold war is over red baiting is still common. Conservatives who engage in this behavior (not the alt right) are the right wing equivalent of SJWs. If anything, Antifa is the left wing equivalent of the Alt right.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator It’s not red baiting when people criticize antifa since Antifa openly glorifies communism and they identify as “anarcho-communists”.
- +1 y
Conservatives Red bait way more groups than Antifa.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Mudslinging is very common on both sides of the political spectrum.
- +1 y
Yeah but it doesn't make them necessarily 'proto-Totalitarian'.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Using political correctness to censor is proto totalitarian.
- +1 y
But it doesn't make the ideology behind the individual using it proto totalitarian.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator If we are talking about SJWs then yes they are proto totalitarian.
- +1 y
But they don't make Social Liberalism proto-Totalitarian any more than 'Muricans make conservatism proto Totalitarian.
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator Social liberalism isn’t an official ideology, it’s a political term that can be applied to several political ideologies. While conservatism is an official ideology but isn’t proto totalitarian.
Social liberalism in regards to SJWs is proto totalitarian, while Social liberalism in regards to moderate liberals isn’t.
689 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Men have held a global strong hold on positions of power and change through force and law for nearly 20 centuries with few disruptions "allowed" to the status quo. Imagine having to cede any of that power now? You can't go from "this is just the way it is," or "know your place," or "you can't hope to compete because you're a woman," or "creating laws to suppress the advancement of women specifically," to seeing a woman want or actually take charge and fill a set of shoes that have almost or always been male with the flip of a switch.
We tell kids that they can be anything they want---but have we really meant that for girls? We tell women, go after what you want and only your qualifications and character should matter, and then we ask them what are you wearing. There are SO many men who welcome a woman who puts the work in, who fights for what she feel is right, and stands up for herself and others, but yet, there is a whole set who are hell bent on pushing women back into the dark ages when you can't go backwards. Women's empowerment forces some men to start to figure out their place in the world if it suddenly no longer assumed, or guaranteed that they will always hold power, or if they now have to face new competition in what have been male only spaces for decades, if not centuries. It can be terrifying to face the prospect of women who will no longer accept what they are told to think and do, but fight, work, and do what it is, like their male counterparts, they want to do.51 Reply- +1 y
Well said, and agreed.
+1 ySome men tend to think that feminists are misandrists. There are some women who claim to be feminists, when, in reality, they are actually misandrists. Due to this, some men tend to believe that all feminists are misandrists when this is not true. At least, this is what I'm telling myself, as I refuse to believe that there are men out there who genuinely think that men and women should not be equal.
01 Reply- +1 y
this doesn't happen only with feminism unffonternly
and some men say they want equal rights but men have their right since the being
Women need equality
Ask to an AI Persona
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
What Girls & Guys Said
20
Opinion
125Opinion
I don’t think it’s empowerment that threatens men. I think it’s the actions that follow is what threatens men.
If a man can have his life ruined by a fake rape charge that’s a reasonable reason to feel threatened just like a woman can feel threatened by a man’s potential to rape her.
Power isn’t threatening. What people choose to do with that power is what can be threatening and sometimes, empowered people don’t use their power for good.
I love empowered women but even I try to get to know the women I date before I give them all of my trust. If she’s crazy, she can accuse me of battery or rape and pull me to court. That alone can put a dent in my life financially and socially even if I win. But if she wins?
Can you understand the intimidation? Men aren’t the only ones capable of evil. There’s some nasty women out there too but most are too meek to show it. But once they become empowered they can unleash that nature on anyone regardless of if they deserve it or not.
Personally I think everyone should stop being jerks to eachother but I’m told that’s living in a fantasy. So here’s my response60 Reply- 5.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
You know why. The definition of their manhood depends on their relationship to women. For them it is a zero-sum game. If women gain more power, then somehow they have less. If women can go out and make their own living, then why are "we" needed? If women can do my job better than me, then I won't have a job.
They don't define themselves independently of womanhood. It isn't about their status among other men. Or just among other people. They are not confident that they are the best at what they do. They are not confident that they can attract women no matter what. Every thought they seem to have points to this fantasy that if women are sexually attracted to each other and if they can work and do the same jobs. . . then somehow we have lost our value.
It is written all over this forum, in threads about how every woman is a lesbian. Or how men can't get a date unless women somehow lower their standards. Or that women are taking over or that we can hit on women in the workplace.
It is all narcissistic, weird and shows a total lack of empathy.01 Reply - +1 y
First of all, I don't feel threatened by women's empowerment. I firmly believe that Women should be equal to Men and not superior to Men. For this Women need to be empowered to reach the same level as Men.
The main reason I can think of why some men would be threatened is that it can feel like the issues Men face like mental health and domestic abuse can feel overlooked when the primary focus is on women's empowerment. Also, International Women's day is given much more attention and celebration then international Men's Day (I know you celebrate both so thanks for that).
Finally, with the empowerment of women, societal expectations of Women such as staying at home and caring for kids, have gone away. However, it feels like societal expectations of Men such as working and bringing in most of the household income don't feel like they have massively gone away.
I think for gender equality the first step is to empower Women up to the same level as Men. But the next step is to get rid of societal expectations for Men like we have done for Women.00 Reply 6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. When i was in third grade the other students and i were playing tag on the playground. Suddenly, it occurred to me that I actually wanted to be "it," so that everyone else would run from me. I got tagged and turned around to start the chase only to find everyone else who was playing with their hands out also wanting to be "it."
Feminism has a weird sort of history. A mere 200 years ago it was unheard of for women to have a paying job. Everyone understood they were supposed to be homemakers, and that was that. Not that homemaking is easy, but it is generally assumed to be far more morally rewarding than (for example) coal mining. Add to this the fact that several inventions came about that made homemaking easier (electric stoves, washing machines, vacuums...) and it didn't take long for men to start to resent women for having an easier life. But it was also the case that, initially, the men in charge didn't want to put up with women in their work place. However, it quickly be apparant that they could hire women for a tenth of the wages as men, and like the game of tag when I was in third grade, the shift from fear to fun was very swift.
Of course, this led to many men not being hired for the jobs they needed to support their own families, and the call to enforce equal pay made a lot of sense to everyone. Unfortunately (and predictably), the owners didn't want to do that, and embarked on a mass misinformation campaign to try to portray women as unworthy of equal pay and, obviously, unworthy for positions of authority. It was largely successful and our media echo chambers still use a lot of the same tone and language from back then. Only thing we can really do about it is stop voting for republicans. Need to reduce the influence billionaires have in our elections, or attitudes will continue to trend towards whatever makes them richer.03 Reply- +1 y
Because the democratic candidates weren't incredibly rich right?
- +1 y
I mean I agree with the rest of your post but the last bit is a bit illogical
- +1 y
Democrats are corrupt, no doubt. But they are only as corrupt as they have to be to compete with the advantage unbridled corruption gives republicans. Republicans are just scammers who's path of success happened to align with a path into the republican party. Or rather, it could be said that becoming a Republican is the path of least resistance for any scammer. No one likes a bully but everyone is too ashamed to admit to being bullied. And that's ultimately what a scammer is - an economic bully. The republicans rely on that shame to do all of their scamming. The democrats only play along because they would be a dead party if they didn't.
2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. People are fickle. Everyone is selfish. Women's empowerment is a form of self indulgence. Society has a big problem with self indulgence at the moment and it is breaking down our sense of community.
A saw a woman on the train act like a child because a man told her to cover her mouth when she coughs. This is basic manners and hygiene. She had no right to react the way she did which was to get up and cough right in his face.
The underlying reason for her behaviour is societies loss of any sense of community. The man is just "a man" she will never see ever and who she has already decided lies beneath her in human hierarchy. So she feels that she can behave in a childish manner towards him. If he was a colleague at her work or someone she knows, she probably would've actually said sorry and acknowledged he has done nothing wrong and in fact she was wrong the whole time.
There is a subliminal sense of this amongst us but to mention it goes against the fashionable conscience.
In fact, I won't be surprised if you attack me for expressing this.12 Reply- +1 y
No. What I was saying was that she acted that way due to the loss of any sense of community in society which has been caused by a culture of fashionable self indulgence.
The whole feminist movement has come on the back of women self indulging in using men as the scapegoat any way they can.
This also isn't a little self indulgence. This isn't having an extra beer cause it's your best friends birthday party, this is raiding the liquor store and then accusing them of discrimination because they tell you that you've had enough.
Play the same record over and over and you're going to get a few downvotes.
It's a self indulgent, fashionably offended culture.
- 491 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
We all focus on things we want to see fact being without men there cannot be women empowerment and lots of men are supporting women empowerment, it is just some people start with idea of women empowerment and if they get social recognition then they become false feminist once who spoke about equality later that changes to like we are the superior class and also when there is a crisis or tough situation in certain scenario women tend to play the weaker sex card because they don't want to face or indulge with messy and complex conclusions there is a duality in the behaviour I have seen in my country where a girl accused something on a guy it became national news and it was not his fault but he had to loose respect and also lost his job and had to visit court regularly and the later it was came to know it was the girl using the women card in the name of feminism she got all the rewards his life got ruined and she fled to some other country and the guy is still goes for court hearing and the girl does not answer the court session notice so basically it's all about power and how you wish to use it
00 Reply 1.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. We're not threatened, we're annoyed, because most of the time, when someone throws "women empowerment" it's accompanied by men belittlement, when it's not plain hate. It seems that modern feminists can't conceive empowering women without crushing men. In fact that's what they're aiming for. Not an equal place in society, but being above, above men in particular.
You want an equal place, and I'm talking about equality of right and opportunities here, I'm fine with it. But as soon as you start insulting, belittling and shitting on me, that's where we have a problem.120 Reply- 3.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
They aren't. That's kind of like asking why some one would begrudge a person for being a dictator. No one cares if you want money, no one really cares if you want power, its when you decide to destroy other peoples lives and control them that they start to get resentful. When women have all the power all the privilege and none of the responsibility and no accountability and the audacity to play victim when they are better off then men by a substantial margin (and always have been), that's not men being threatened by women's "empowerment", its men being resentful of a hateful sexist ideological authoritarian dictator who won't rest until they have subjugated entirely, half the human population. Those are two different things (but you know that and so you try to conflate them to avoid any one criticizing your sexist authoritarian system).
317 Reply- +1 y
If that’s the case then these men should be equally as upset about the effort by 21 studios to make women great again by making them submissive again. By now enough people know who they are. Their content and convention promotions have gone viral and they’ve gotten a lot of press in the last few months, but you don’t hear much from the “men for true equality” crowd.
- +1 y
That's not true and by your own reasoning you should be upset that men don't have the same legal rights as women, or that almost all suicides are male, almost all homeless are male, that their is only one domestic violence shelter in north America and over 2,000 women's shelters despite studies showing that domestic violence is generally perpetrated by women against men rather then the other way around. You would be upset that child custody laws descriminate with extreme prejudice against men in favor of women as do divorce laws. You would be infuriated by men being portrayed as evil and stupid, as fathers as being incompetent or abusive in nearly every show and movie, as women never being portrayed as evil etc. but of course your not because you want that descrimination because it gives you power and control over other peoples lives. It gives you rights and privileges no one else gets to have so why would you ever fight for equality when you can play victim and get everying you ever wanted? So yeah, my statement still stands and you just proved my point (but don't you always?).
- +1 y
Nope, everything I said is objective fact, just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not true. As for being a victim, I never once said you where a victim, I stated that by proclaiming (which is different then actually being a victim) to be a victim (as that is literally what feminism is, a proclaimation of victimhood at the hands of men/society) you gain many benefits amongst them freedom from expectations, freedom from consequences, extra privileges and rights etc.
- +1 y
Their you go being manipulative and sociopathic again. I am simply stating objective reality and all data proves it (in fact I have already proved it to you numerous times with sources (like Harvard, the CDC, the NCVS etc.). Clearly your delusional and filled with so much hatred for men and women (hence you advocating that women act more like men because you cannot stand the idea of women being women) that you are just ignoring reality but what ever, you keep being your delusional self (not that I have been able to stop you).
- +1 y
Says the woman who tries to tell men how to act like men. Also your wrong, you don't get to define that, biology does that so again, your delusional and have a rampant ego on top of being a generally hateful, manipulative, sexist person. You are a perfect example of a toxic woman, you are machivellian, sociopathic, narcassistic and you attempt to hurt people as much as you can to get what you want (I mean your failing miserablly but your trying (women's MO is to find percieved psychological and emotional weaknesses and use those to hurt others (which is why women are far more likely to be emotionally abusive then men are (I feel really bad for the men in your life, you probably have beaten them down so much that they don't even know that leaving you is an option more then likely). But then we have been through this haven't we? I mean you can keep trying but I am unfazed by your attacks, I have had real struggle that I have had to overcome not the make believe bullshit you claim to experience in order to get pity and power over people. To quote rick and morty, "you act like prey but your a predator. You use pity to lure in your victims, that's how you survive.". That's you and feminism in a nutshell.
- +1 y
Men can act however they want. I don’t want to bother trying to change people that don’t want to change. Doesn’t mean I have to endorse or support certain behaviors. And it doesn’t mean I won’t warn women not to tolerate certain behavior either. We can’t change others but we can choose how to react to it.
We women get to decide how we want to live as women. I’m not talking about biology. I’m talking about lifestyle, character, and behavior.
I’ve been told by others before that confidence and independence is masculine, not feminine. Nonsense.
Confidence
Independence
Ambition
Audacity
Power
Strength
Are all just as much ours as women as it is yours as men. If some men can’t deal with that, well, tough. - +1 y
Except that's not what your advocating and you know it. Again, playing victim to gain power, your really pathetic. You don't even have the courage to come out and admit what your really doing (do you even have the courage to admit it to yourself? I'm guessing not.). Everything you have said is obfuscation or misrepresentation but what ever, your inconsequential.
- +1 y
What ever helps you sleep at night princess.
I think that many people, including feminists and people in general, view power as a zero-sum game. That is, there is a limited amount of power and the only way to give it to someone is to take it away from someone else.
An example of this zero-sum game empowerment could be requiring the CEO of a company to be female.
However, not all power is a zero-sum game. Some things, like access to education for all people or building and maintaining roads, can empower everyone.
The problem is, when people talk about empowering women, they tend to focus on empowering women in ways that do not empower everyone, of all genders.31 Reply2.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. It's not threatening. But for some reason certain women feel the need to be total cunts about it.
women's empowerment has been in some cases taken too far.
For example, London mayor Sadiq Khan said that misogyny should be a crime... think about what this means. A negative opinion about women could potentially be a criminal offense that could lead to imprisonment.
And why are women being empowered to be more like men instead of being more like women.
Because a lot of the pro female empowerment types seem to be anti motherhood.511 Reply- +1 y
Like you always hear about women getting high degrees of education and great career prospects , high paying job opportunities.
Fine that's great. But if you don't have children , it's kinda meaningless, because it only benefits you and you won't live forever.
I think women should be encouraged to be mothers not office drones.
In my opinion mothers are way above female CEOs - +1 y
I think women should be encouraged to do what they want. If you push women into motherhood you’re just going to end up with more Casey Anthonys. We SEE what motherhood does to a woman. Studies have shown married couples with children are the least happy.
Now I’m 35 and I have no kids yet. It’s not completely off the table but I know I have to do some living before I have kids, otherwise I will be a miserable mom and that will only hurt the whole family. - +1 y
Abortion among women in their 30s and 40s is high and rising because they mistaken believe shit like you just tried to claim.
www.bpas.org/.../
I’m still able to have children and I will be waiting a few more years as my doctor gave me the green light to do.
So I’d appreciate you stop with the false claims. - +1 y
What makes you think she even wants to have kids? Claiming that a woman’s biggest value is reproducing is quite small minded. Now I can see why women are so pissed at men, because a lot of them still think they can tell a woman how to live her life.
- +1 y
You’re allowed to think that way for yourself but you have to understand why encouraging others to make these huge, personal life decisions can be dangerous and toxic if that’s not the path they’d choose without your influence. They’d genuinely have to want it for themselves and quite frankly I can see why many just simply don’t want to be parents.
5.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. This is a very good question and the answer is rather complex, but it has to do with the evolutionary role of males and their becoming "unemployed", in a sense, by an empowered female.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPjxJKvMdZg
Put another way, an empowered female doesn't need a male and when her male detects that, he gets concerned and upset like he's going to lose his job.
I could elaborate a bit, but I will let "The Godfather's" Don Vito Corleone explain how men really define and judge each other.
Don Vito to Johnny Fontane (who is the actual godson of Don Vito): Do you spend time with your family?
JF: "Of course, I do."
DV: "Good! A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
So, an empowered woman can take away his family because she no longer needs him.20 ReplyI am all up for empowerment, but nowadays this movement has turned into a movement that is empowering women by downgrading men. And that's not healthy. No one should be undermined in any way. But yet, we see women jumping at men's throats, calling them toxically masculine, chauvinistic and who knows how else. And then you have counter arguments from hurt men that scream insults the other way. And that's not a conversation, that's just crazy people spewing insults at each other and not constructively working on a solution. Hence, the negativity from both sides.
20 Reply- +1 y
Well, it might be the interpretation and association of what women empowerment is. A user on here said that it might be associated with man hate, sexism, promiscuity, etc. My definition of women empowerment is very different from any of the above. I think you empower women by making them strong and independent, without sacrificing any of their feminine behavior or traits. I would teach them how to fight, workout, survival, and shooting. Fostering their mindset to become resilient and relentless so that if they find themselves in a situation they don’t cower but continue to act. I would also teach them to think tactically and always be prepared for a wide variety of dangers. This will create an amazing sense of empowerment for ANYONE. I’m not making them invincible, but I am giving them the tools and helping them foster a mindset that allows them to approach any situation with bravery.
27 Reply- +1 y
Perhaps we should preach for peace rather than pushing everyone to combat training. Not agreeing that pushing some of the least constructive parts of what are typically viewed as male traits to women is what's needed. Perhaps we could look at both genders and agree some more peaceful gives and gets.
- +1 y
You can be for peace and be peaceful at the same time and be prepared. I love animals, complete softie for a pen full of puppies and kittens. I squeal like a little kid and try to embrace and kiss all of these puppies if I could. At the same time, I can be very violent and lethal. I love wrestling, suffering, and competing with another person. I train in the heat, in the cold, raining, etc.
Be both.
Be the kind lion
Not the kind mouse
Mouse can’t do shit and has to be kind... You expect to be kind because it’s weak and can’t do anything else for itself.
Be the peaceful warrior.
The warrior who embraces peace
Not the pacifist that embraces peace. - +1 y
President Putin kisses babies and puppies. There's no such thing a peaceful warrior, just one in denial.
- +1 y
There’s no such thing as a peaceful mouse, just a incapable, weak, cowardly, and soft mouse. Mouse get eaten and killed by everything.
You can and should be both. I’m this way, President Putin is a bad example lol. - +1 y
Yin and yang
- +1 y
I think you train because you enjoy the theory routine and gain. I hope it's not about actual violence
- +1 y
It’s everything.
Discipline, violence, capability, mental toughness, career, etc.
892 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Feminists have pushed people away, a lot of people just instantly dislike stuff now that even goes in that direction. I don't see a problem with your comment but I think that's the reason. But I think the framing of your question is kind of wrong. Why is it that when men dislike something it means they're "threatened" by it? This is language that feminists use to belittle men.
They want to build a strawman where men are always immature, throwing tantrums etc. and you're feeding into that narrative. Also you can be for equal rights and not be for any kind of womens movement. Because developed cauntries already have equal rights for men and women. But womens movements always want to make it seem like if you're not for them then you're against women. But that's not the case.04 Reply- +1 y
I think the whole gender war situation has made people on both sides pretty iritable. When I was a kid until I was 19 I was totally for womens rights womens empowerment whatever it was. I didn't really know much about the whole situation back then though. When I learned more about it I became quite antifeminist because they use a lot of dishonest arguments and framing, shame tactics, just name calling etc.
I am still for womens empowerment though I've just become a lot more careful and I pay a lot of attention to how things are worded and how arguments are built because there's too much bullshit flying around.
You're right in theory there it shouldn't be a loss for anybody if women get more empowered but in practise it doesn't always work out that way. - +1 y
And then understand that extreme feminism and women’s empowerment can be poorly represented by some groups and individuals, and I get grouped into that as well, even though I don’t even call myself a feminist. I definitely have some views that align with some feminist views and objectives but it’s such a loaded word and I try to stay away from it and focus on the mission.
I think part of the gender war is still being fueled by women who still resent that men used to mistreat them.
And I think men fuel it too because they are mad women have it naturally easier when it comes to sex. Instead of accepting the fact that is how nature intended, they blame women for having standards, hypergamy, and so the incel movement was born.
- +1 y
Trust me Men support women empowerment,
But its instances when women start taking undue advantage of it, is when we lose our minds, and start doubting it.
You know if a man is bullied by other man, you can get well expect that the bullied man can fight and beat the hell out of him for having done that. And its correct to do that. Why not you can't just absorb all negativity around you unnecessarily.
But what if the same thing is done by a female?
The man has to bear it.
He has to live by it, just because its not taught to him by his family to slap a woman which will be called abusive by the society without seeing whose fault it was. And then apathy , is the woman will still get the sympathy. And be looked upon as victim.
Its true it happens always, everyday, around us men.
But we tend to move on with the burden.
And the woman takes more pride in that.
Ironical but true40 Reply - +1 y
Honestly I don't see around me many guys who have something against women empowerment. I am glad for that we all feel happy that our women are strong, independent and successful.
Half of my close friends are in relationships with girls who make more money than them or even a higher degree and don't feel bad about it.
Still I know that is not how the majority thinks. They feel their dick smaller the second they find out the girl in front of them is better than them in anything.
I am glad girls can be and do anything. I am a son to my mother, a brother to my sisters, a husband to my wife and one day I might be a father to my daughter. So of course I am all for empowering them.
That doesn't mean that men lost power. Women just have gain more. Big difference.21 Reply- +1 y
OH NO! A clear and thoughtful comment. Talk it over with your wife. You need to have a daughter. Remember, MEN are in control of the sex of their children. If you WANT a daughter, you'll have one. Unfortunately, something happened to my dad and he thought about one. Boy was HE surprized by me!! But truthfully, a supportive dad who a daughter falls in love with because he loves her mother is the best thing a little girl can experience.
- 1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
Because many times women get empowerment but are spared the responsibility that comes with that empowerment. For instance a man has sign up for the draft in order to vote but women can just vote. And then there are times when the responsibility for women choices force responsibility onto men. Like when a women gets pregnant she has choices, she can get an abortion or place the child up for adoption or even just abandon it at a fire or police station. But if a man gets a woman pregnant he has to pay child support but doesn't get to choose weather or not he can be a part of his child's life or even if his child gets to live in the case of abortion. There are also cases of blatant double standards. For instance when 2 adults get drunk and have sex. The woman is now a rape victim but the man is now a rapist.
40 Reply - 4.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
I have absolutely no issues with women's empowerment... None at all. I also believe we should all be equal under the law... Which we are. What i have issue with is the fact that the socialist left wish to push us into a world where there is more segregation not less, where there is more division between us as a people not less. No one in the liberal leftist movement actually wants unity, or equality.. All they are concerned with is taking from others what is not theirs to begin with.
My question from a while ago is a good example of most of the liberal left..
What does everyone think of POC (people of color) only safe spaces in schools and college campuses?32 Reply- +1 y
And here is the real kicker... I am a Liberal. Classical liberal.. And i have more in common with the GOP now than i do with the DNC..
- +1 y
The social liberal Left that self identifies as woke. I assure you, the socialist Left is a wide variety of people with am even wider variety of views. Many socialists are criticized by those people for being "class reductionist", Bernie Bros, Brocialists, deniers of intersectionality and stubborn Marxists.
1.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Because it's not actually about empowerment it's about superiority.
The facts are women are highly priviledged but they push a myth that they are oppressed to get more privilege.
www.realsexism.com70 Reply- +1 y
because its not empowerment u talk about... its over empowerment... back in the day they jus wanted equal rights, and thats fine... if girls had same amount of rights as us (equal rights) then id be totally fine with that.
but now they have more rights than us, its like they use their pussy as some kind of... i dont know the words... they use it as like... some uh... moral excuse like... i dont know how to explain what i mean,..,.. but they think theyre better than us jus cos they have a vagina.. and that annoys me05 Reply- +1 y
thats true
- +1 y
but i mean like how.. if u compliment a guy or say he's hot... then 99.9 percent of guys will see no problem with that and say its totally acceptable to give someone a compliment...
but do the same to a girl and say she's hot... they will all call that harrassment and say the guy is "catcalling her" ... wtf - +1 y
Women are constantly getting unwarranted sexual attention from men. We’ve ALL been sexually harassed. I’ve been stalked and followed as many of women also have. We’ve come to a greater understanding of what a compliment truly means. Approach is everything. A strange man who calls a woman hot on the street is a creep. If that same man took the time to genuinely meet her, get to know her, and then compliment her looks using a better word than “hot” turn he wouldn’t be called a creep. Again, it’s all about the approach. I don’t why some have such a hard time with this.
1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Because some men hate women and some women hate men. That will not be solved overnight and I hope as we continue to educate and empower both men and women those haters reduce in number over time.
Personally I would fully support my 5 year old niece becoming president of the US in 30 years. I will also support her following any other passion in the same way my support is unwavering for my 4 year old Godson. Empowerment within the family is the most important empowerment we can offer our society.00 Reply- 2.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
Because empowerment is what all the crazy feminazis go on about, they want to be above men and in most western countries women already are but they still continue to say they're oppressed which is total lies and continue to make men's lives more difficult which is why the suicide and mental illness rate for men is sky rocketing while at the same time not being addressed in the slightest because of people like that pink anon who seem to think if you say or do one nice thing for men you must be misogynistic because it doesn't benefit women.
56 Reply- +1 y
It doesn't have to be a crazy feminazi saying it for it to be a bad thing
I mean if you're interested to know you can always go and look for it yourself, you're 35 according to your account, I'm not here to spoon feed you. - +1 y
I mean I could literally quote Snakeyes7
"Because empowerment isn’t equality if only one side of the scale is receiving it."
If you don't want to find the answers yourself then you obviously didn't care enough to know in the first place and your façade comes crumbling down.
I don't spoon feed, never have never will - +1 y
It is well done
- +1 y
I feel like those men aren't very secure with their masculinity and so when a woman is empowered or successful it makes them feel less masculine. I think those men are more likely to want the traditional gender roles where the woman is a housewife and he works and provides for the family.
58 Reply- +1 y
And if the woman wants to be a housewife? Are you going to put her down for wanting that?
- +1 y
No that's her choice. There is nothing wrong with wanting a housewife or wanting to be one. I'm just saying that I THINK that men who are insecure with their masculinity are more likely to want a relationship like that.
- +1 y
Then why isn't is his choice too, why would you put men down if you wouldn't put women down for wanting the same thing?
Why aren't you saying I think people who are insecure are more likely to want a relationship like that, you can't have one but not the other, otherwise it's just flat out sexism - +1 y
I feel like this is just subjective. Why are you saying this with the tone of ‘because men are selfish and egotistical’ because the majority of men have good reasons, not all men are selfish and egotistical I don't know why i keep seeing girls say this... Can’t we just agree that everyone is different and saying things like “Because those men aren’t very insecure about their masculinity and they’re egotistical” is wrong and generalizing and certainly doesn’t apply to the majority of men, most men are reasonable about this topic and don’t have issues with it at all.
- +1 y
It is his choice. Stop twisting my words. There are men in this world who are insecure with their masculinity and I'm saying I think they want that and even if they do that's still their choice. They are choosing to have a traditional relationship over a non traditional one. I just think men who are insecure with their masculinity are more likely to choose a traditional relationship.
- +1 y
Except she's painting every man that seeks a traditional relationship as being insecure by not wording things correctly, I'm very particular about this sort of thing and has be to do this with people to get therm to say what they actually meant instead of their initial badly worded post.
- +1 y
and have to do this with people*
Obviously I can't stop autocorrect ruining things
2.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. This is why I sadistically enjoy to label them as weaklings!
These are all the machos, who kept saying "i dont give a shit about this or that. i dont care about men's day. We don't need men's day. i dont give a F..., MGTOW bitches. If women need men like fish need bicycles, then men need women like bicycles need fish!" that caused women to withdraw from showing us some love. And their favorite trigger-happy buzzword is feminism.
Women showed us love.
Then the machos discouraged it.
Then the women turned silent, became confused or pretty much said "fine. have it your way".
Then the blues adopt destructive habits such as alcoholism and feed further into their macho-ism.
Then the suicide rates of men keep going upwards.
Coincidence? I think not.
🤦♀️
They reap what they sow.20 ReplyThe last century or so has seen a massive change in the gender power structure. Fundamentally, women hold all the cards, anyway. They select who gets to reproduce! In the traditional (patriarchal?) regime, a young man held some power as the potential provider for a family. Now that women can provide for themselves, or live off the state, many young men have no real role. They are not in the top 20% desired for breeding. They are powerless and disenfranchised (and involuntarily celibate). Women's empowerment has left them worse off than any previous generation of men.
30 Reply- 1.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
I don't think any man is "threatened" by female empowerment, especially since it's more of a joke than a reality. I am not being disingenuous either.
There is a back lash against females constantly patting themselves on the back for no reason to feel "strong and independent" because it actually contradicts the entire meaning of "strong and independent".
Empowered people doesn't need to have endless social campaigns, clubs, groups, funding, assistance, trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc
Empowered people don't use social bias to literally destroy another group and still pretend they are oppressed.
So when someone claims female "empowerment"111 Reply- +1 y
... it usually gets a negative stamp because most guys are tired of hearing the "pay attention to me! Tell me I am special!" mantra
- +1 y
There are three other groups that need constant support, and pats on the back for nothing.
Dogs
Children
the mentally disabled.
But those three groups don't create rallies, special days, and social media campaigns to try and force others to give them these false accolades.
We tired men will take a nap if you pathetic self promoters will grow the fuck up.
Your comfortable little bubble only exists because "tired men" die to make it easy for you. - +1 y
Campaigns, rallies, and laws created by women to silence, suppress, and destroy men are not "not hurting anyone".
- +1 y
Any of the bullshit feminist pushed nonsense.
Take back the night, Slut walk, "equal pay" crap, the entire MeToo shit, All campaigns suggesting women are victims and men are monsters.
NOW (national organization for women) 3 separate times shut down men's equal parenting rights
It's actually quicker to mention any female campaigns, rallies and laws which don't hurt people...
I can't think of one. - +1 y
The slut walk was created because a police officer blamed a woman for the sexual misconduct she endured due to her appearance.
I’m not really into the whole equal pay thing because I don’t think I’ve experienced being paid less due to my gender. In fact, it’s so much easier for women to get rich online and I encourage many to take that route if it suits them.
- +1 y
Yeah Slut walk is nonsense. It's like people creating door walk because people who keep their car doors unlocked want to shame criminals into not committing crimes on cars with easy access to things. Slutwalk is another excuse for women in groups to expose themselves in public and act like it's "empowerment".
NO female in western society experiences less pay simply because of their sex... men on the other hand DO. Because of these stupid campaigns companies pay women premiums to work for them as a way of filling quotas.
Agreed, the radicals who take things to the point of misandry allow those who're influenced too much by what they feel their role is as men to feel consciously justified in disagreeing with movements to tilt the scales towards a better balance of different varieties of people in fields across the world. Its something that pushes at the back of mind too, but at least I've learnt to ignore it and look at the facts instead and try to keep my stance rational and not fall in with the band wagon.
I do agree with the top comment below though that there are many other groups that are seriously under-represented in the movement, but I seriously doubt that was what garnered the down votes.00 ReplyWomen around the globe have the right to equality with men, but it's way different with a woman than a man. For instance, a man can provide for the family for years with complain or showoff but a woman having the title of bread winner in a family will certainly explode within a short time. Her actions to the man who's not capable to quarantine the rate of financial contribution in the family will show from time to time.. Men have common endurance which a woman lack.. Empowerment for women is not a threat but the use of it just like the saying "money is the root of evil, but it's wrong it's the use of money that can be evil.. Thanks y'all
04 Reply- +1 y
Well, certainly I have not been in that position where a woman takes care of all the financial needs while I do nothing. But I have a close friend back home couple of years back, he was a victim of such circumstances. I mean it should be equal right and contribution for both man and woman.. but when a woman takes over all the financial responsibility, 80% of women will like to have full or total control over the man, ordering him around and displaying plenipotentiary power over him even before his friends which shouldn't be.. That's what I mean by "exploding"
- +1 y
From what I've seen, a lot of men are so obsessed with the whole "male oppression" thing that they totally ignore the fact that women still have it hard in many fields. I for example noticed that women are treated worse in professions that are mainly about strength (for example building) or intelligence (for example engineering). Then they come up with false claims that countries where women don't have more rights than men don't exist. It is probably hard to believe, but in Europe people ARE actually treated equally regardless of gender. And some countries are so right-winged (take Poland as an example) that basically the whole net is used for bashing women and sending them to kitchen.
But some men do not want to believe this. Thry just want everything to be about them. Because "men are oppressed, period".04 Reply- +1 y
@Chase7777 I live in Europe so I know what's going on here. Which country have you been in?
- +1 y
Are you as strong as the men? Are you willing to work as the men? Are you as smart as the men? If yes then you deserve equal treatment and equal pay given it would be equal pay for equal labor. However feminists demand discrimination against men by artificially forcing higher pay for less labour for women and artifically force organisations to hire women over better suited candidates. Which is systemmic discrimination against us.
I am not as likely to be believed as a woman, i am artifically discriminated against by law. So you do not have the right to claim those are not real issues. Or else you would be arguing against the facts.
But feel free to find genuine systemmic examples where woman get oppressed so the solution can benefit us both.
Threatened is an incorrect word.
And also why your ego is running behind to seek revenge on men society!
Is that part of women empowerment?
As far as i know you, you made rash and rude and impolite comments when it comes to men.
So this is what you get for it!
WHY SO SERIOUS?💀27 Reply- +1 y
They too just did what the need to do.
If you dont like taking downvote, simply dont mind them. Or dont comment such things.
You actions of getting frustrated about some downvotes only proves how jealous and insecure you feel inside.
It also proves what you said were still doubtful within you.😂
Why are you interpreting downvotes as being threatened by women's empowerment? I don't know why those people voted that way but maybe they just don't think that audaciously ignoring criticism is appropriate or that it has anything to do with women's empowerment.
12 Reply- 5.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
because some of the people "fighting" for "female empowerment" are fascist misandrists. it's not unreasonable to be scare to not have a way to defend against them because men are right now not exactly being treated equally. they are being treated like supressors that will be silenced from a fake moral high horse at every attemt to create some fair discourse.
52 Reply- +1 y
it is a dangerous ideology that you should also be scared of even if you're a woman.
I don't get why, but if I had to guess, I would say it's for the same reasons the right-wing feels threatened by any group they've discriminated against becoming empowered: The fear is that they will be mistreated the same way they mistreated everyone they viewed as the "other."
Fear of retaliation.
It's a problem most people have, not being able to think outside of themselves. Not everyone is out for revenge, but the men who feel threatened don't see it that way. They think everyone else thinks the same way they do and if THEY suddenly had a lot of power they'd likely misuse it, continuing the cycle.00 ReplyI don't feel threatened by this, I think that behind this mentality is "I'll get everything that you have too but, if things go bad for me, I'll look at you with sad dog eyes so you can give it to me anyway". Do you want go and take things for yourself? Okay, but don't go beg society for help if you struggle. I think it's just a cowardly and hypocritical mentality that tries to get the best of everything without taking the responsibilities that come with it in a quest for power. If your goal is power, I personally think your mentality is not good.
I am not against equality, quite the opposite, but I think this mentality is power seeking, not equality seeking. If you seek power, you seek to be above others and that's not good in my eyes.00 ReplyLOL!! They are terrified that women will take over and make them grow up!! They know that there is nearly nothing of consequence, that a man can do, that a woman can't do at least as well, or figure out a better way!
I have no fear at all, and I think women are amazing, and love all of the ones in my life!! At least Equals, and maybe even better than a lot of guys!!24 Reply2.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. You are showing a comment and the likes and dislikes out of the context of the question this was posted in. Men in general are not against women empowerment but thourougly reject discrimination. So if this was a question linked to the discrimination of men or masculinity then that is why you got disliked.
012 Reply- +1 y
International Women’s Day gets media attention and recognition because women take the initiative to make that happen. If men want that same media attention and recognition, no one is stopping them from raising awareness about it or celebrating it. It’s just that men aren’t taking nearly as much initiative as women do.
- +1 y
I don't hear anyone talking about men's day. Primary n Highschool never celebrated it. It's not really talked about nowadays. Womens day is probs had more attention cause empowering women and introducing to wonderful female role models is good as women are still not as equally treated as men.
Men's day does exist but isn't as much known, like how pancake/cake/birthdays of people people day aren't as known. But just saying men's day has it's same purpose as women's day to introduce good male role models and more.
Just saying that pl don't see y men has it's men's day or any of it's use (somtimes) from the overuse of stereotyping men as treat. - +1 y
Other than working with said groups, companies don’t put out yearly reports of who they decline air time. From my work in the communities I have seen such results first hand. For example there is only one men’s shelter for domestic violence victims in the United States. Though there have been other attempts they are denied the state and federal funding women’s shelters receive, they also face regular threats of violence from feminist groups.
- +1 y
Nobody is threaten... women don't really have power like that, their nature is just more mild and more related to feelings that is what actually makes them more beautiful and powerful then anyone already, but in terms of raw power and control over the definition of this reality they are so very far away from it surely they can bring vibrations of happiness into everyone life from their little miracles of love (kids) and peace to men they can bring peace. I think they really are the equilibrum in this world
024 Reply- +1 y
Some men are not lead at all by sexuality so that is just so partial.
- +1 y
WEll a small fraction of men are really powerfull and control most of the world if not all :)
- +1 y
Sexual energy can be canalized to other things... of course it is nice to be filled by the love and light of a woman but some people see womens as mean of procreation and that is all :) not sure if women are needed in the equation of power and control.
- +1 y
They are necessary but never in control... maybe sadly I don't know can't really 'see' the complexity of this situation I just see that men control the world always been like this from time to time a strong woman arised but that was all, women have a different type of energy it doesn't represent the strong how we see it and define it at the moment. I think it is very complicated.
- +1 y
The men you know live to please women most superficial some deep on emotions but still somehow weak, the really powerful men manipulate womens as toys and they live for absolute power and total control and especially knowledge.. I can't even emphasize exactly. Society is a complex thing build more on desire to control and power as well more then protecting and providing.
- +1 y
Ehh that is what you like to think... then again you will never meet real powerful men in this life just at most millionares and you forget that money is just paper surely by far not the ultimate form of power. I see that you live under the impression that women can seduce, yes they can but not when facing a wall that is actually a mirror and takes their form
- +1 y
They are... but some men just ignore them and that seduction has no effect... knowledge is endless womens are predictable sorry to dissapoint you but their power is limited there and sadly by nature they are just much weaker both physically and mentally.
- +1 y
I doubt... I think you don't see the big picture because you are lead by some books and probably men that are easy to seduce with the false ideea of power so in a way related to your experience not from a objective way but rather subjective. I don't think women are inferior I just see that they have no power they get little tiny bits of power from time to time and that with like extreme big effort never during history they did not had control or power sure they influence some men but that is about how far it goes.
- +1 y
I do hope you or another women are the one to prove all this is wrong but I am afraid it would need so much more then one that would just be an anomaly
- +1 y
If that is the case, why are there so many different male dominated groups desperate to change female behavior? I’m referring to mgtow, incels, MRAs, the manosphere and all those who follow, support, and promote these groups efforts. You’d think that if men were so powerful they wouldn’t be so frustrated that society is become so gynocentric.
- +1 y
See we speak about different kind of groups you speak about frustated men I speak about calm knowledgeable and very equilibrated men. Man leaded by ego can be very stupid that is a total different situation. And that last kind of men not necesarly want to fool women they are so powerful that it does not matter humanity is nothing without womens they have the gift to procreate but they lack of the power and actually knowledge and wisdom to lead I know what point you want to make sadly for thousand of years there's nothing to it.
- +1 y
Well actually a being that is evolved is probably 50% woman 50% men, maybe that is why relationships take place so we can get in touch with our feminine side and women with their masculine, I think only us humans define and take seriously in consideration things by gender still... we are so early at our stages of evolution, so if you ask me a perfect leader is a woman who can see and feel the man side inside her or a man who can see feel the woman side inside him. What is masculinity these days it is surely controlled by media and false. It is all about equilibrum, harmony and peace I think a true woman leader would not even think how many men ruled over the years she would just be herself in her most beautiful and enlightment state. It is an endless subject and so complicated and complex and it tends to get superficial becouse of this and that.
- +1 y
It depends on the scenario. Just one example Men usually don’t have the support of other men. Whereas women group together and support each other for where they agree. When a woman yells at a man in public, he is usually all alone, but if a man yells at a woman, both men and woman will go in her defense.
10 Reply - +1 y
Maybe it's possible that they simply disagree with the assertion being made, and not that they feel "threatened" by it. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Maybe it's the case that they don't even disagree with the assertion on it's face, but with the dozens of implications regarding other, unrelated issues--since progressivism is sold as a package deal. Example: "Men and women should be treated equally under the law... therefore sexual revolution!"
Just maybe.10 Reply 427 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. The real reason is because political and cultural power is a zero sum game. I support women's equality, bc I am a socialist. In order for the 99% to have more power, the 1% have to have less. That's just the way things are. The more equal the marginalized become, the less relative power -- and so, gross/total power the cultural incumbents have.
There's no two ways about it.14 Reply- +1 y
@Chase7777 I care about men's issues too, that's why I support women.
In the United States, workers, women, PoC, LGBTQ, and other people who are at the sucky end of our power dynamics have to form a coalition to secure any rights for any of us. We as a coalition band together to accomplish things for women, and in turn, they go to bat for our issues -- like occupational safety and worker's rights, criminal justice reform, and other political aspirations that would disproportionately improve the lives of men.
349 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Because men are not treated equally to women. Historically men have had to go to war and die. They get nothing out of child support. They are held to harsher standards in court. They serve longer and more severe sentences more often than women. Historically in America women didn't even go to jail when they committed a crime.
What do you think women don't have?30 Reply- 318 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
I can’t speak for men, but trendy vague slogans like “women’s empowerment” get tiresome in a hurry. Empowered to do what exactly?
711 Reply- +1 y
That’s overbroad.
- +1 y
So what then was the point of your question since you’re stipulating here that we’re already living life as we please and don’t care who likes it or not?
Quite a few guys never get beyond their teenage, drink beer with the buds stage. While women are almost forced into making difficult choices because of pay and rank considerations. As Lenny Bruce the comedian once said, "men want their GFs or wives to be whores 10% of the time and nuns 90% of the time.
00 Reply- +1 y
Men are not threatened by women's empowerment. Men are put off by the current state of the women's movement. Those are two very different things.
I am one of the guys who down voted your comment and it had nothing to do with being threatened by women's empowerment. I can't speak for other guys but I down voted you because of your suggestion that you support men and women equally, which seemed very disingenuous coming from someone who has posted some of the things you have.16 Reply- +1 y
To be clear, it was the incongruence of your comment given your character.
- +1 y
I don't know how you treat your husband or other men, I only know what you post here at GAG, which I assume is a reflection of your character.
- +1 y
Sure
1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. I'd guess for the same reason that some women are threatened by men's growing unwillingness to get married. Its just human nature: there's something you want, that you need from someone else, and that person isn't willing to give it to you, so you feel slighted and angry
Just a guess. I don't really know firsthand from either perspective.03 Reply- +1 y
I agree with you, but I've seen it. I don't pretend to understand it. Just the same as women becoming empowered... why would men have a problem with women being capable, successful and self-sufficient? Doesn't that improve relationships? I understand human nature, but I damn sure don't understand people.
- +1 y
And continuing to feel "threatened" by the other side will only keep proving their point.
- 366 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. +1 y
beacuse they lack of emotional intelligence to understand and have compassion for women and their issues but rather take it as offence as women attacking men, and making it again all about themselves. Those men are the reason why women have the issues they have in the first place and for most issues in the world.
01 Reply- +1 y
@Chase7777 Yes, women have greater issues, I personally experience it every day. Simply put men dont respect women and consider them less capable than them.
Im not saying all men. Nor I said men dont have issues too. But issues men have can all be resolved when you solve womens issues. Meaning, men can't cry cause thats weak, women can cry cause they are weak, but men are stronger than women so they can't cry. If women didn't have to be weak men wouldn't have to be strong and it would be fine for them to cry too. Maybe then they wouldn't kill themselves that much if they properly handled their emotions.
I don't know. I don't see anything particularly wrong with your comment there.
I guess the dislikes are based on what those men assume, rightly or wrongly, what you mean by "empowerment".
I also don't think it's about men feeling "threatened", feeling "intimidated", feeling "insecure", being "afraid of strong women" etc. I don't know why whenever men dislike something women always jump to that.00 Reply- +1 y
Maybe because it draws them further and further away from their love and protection. And teaches them how to be a man hating single for life who likes to sleep around. Teaches you how to be independent etc and less likely to be a loyal house wife. And so on.
00 Reply 10.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. If women's empowerment means equal opportunity and equal access, I do not know a man who is "threatened" by it.
If women's empowerment means quotas, set asides, lowered standards and favoritism, it is sexist and discriminatory. Men are not threatened by women. But sexism and discrimination imperils men's opportunities and access just as racism and discrimination imperils racial minorities. See how that works?10 ReplyLet me guess... it has something to do with fragile masculinity or some other nonsense. Doesn't it? There's nothing wrong with women being independent but "Women's Empowerment" is a hate movement. You can ask "why are people so threatened by Nazism?" and you'll get the same answers
29 Reply- +1 y
The replies in this thread reveal misunderstanding, trust issues, and insecurity. We need to help men find the strength within themselves to accept and respect women in an entirely different way than men have historically viewed women in society. Because that old way will not stand anymore.
- +1 y
If so many people disagree with an idea maybe that's a sign that the idea is not perfect. Right now even women speak against that kind of female empowerment sonit's not justabout men. And i agree! Things should change between men and women but i'm not sure you and i would agree on what that change should be
- +1 y
No idea is going to be perfect. I know what works in my marriage but I understand not everyone is going to be the same as me. However, I want women to have a life as they want it. And I see too many women putting up with less than. I think men could use a new form of empowerment too, one that focuses on inner strength, healthy coping mechanisms, healthy communication, emotions, and socialization, but since I’m not a man, I’m afraid I can’t fully relate as they would need me to. So I focus on how women can better vet the men they come across, which commands men to get their shit together. Some don’t, but some do and I think that’s a good thing.
- +1 y
"We need to help men find the strength within themselves...…" How arrogant. Respect is not something anyone can command, it has to be earned - regardless of sex. Acceptance? We already have that and have had for quite some time, in government, in the workplace, and so on. Suggesting that men are the only ones needing help here is a fallacious argument; it's a two-way street, and we need to look at - and understand - there is more than just a grain of truth in what they're saying on several issues. Try looking at it from the opposing perspective, because there's merit in what they say about the scales being tipped in our favor. And we've all taken advantage of it.
- +1 y
Of course women need help too and I do that. I’ve build an entire business around doing that. They just don’t need the exact same help men do. I have taken on men as clients too if they are a good fit for the type of help I provide. If not, I refer them to some respected male advisers who I feel have earned credibility.
- +1 y
What type of business is that? I’m a criminal defense attorney, I don’t usually see people at their best.
- +1 y
I wish you the best of success!
4.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. If you are genuinely for equality, you call yourself an egalitarian and don't focus on a single group.000
Feminism and anything associated with it is just dog whistling for misandry at this point. If you talk about empowerment for women, I don't trust you anymore than I trust someone who wants empowerment for the "aryan race."12 ReplyIt's the whole women have to be empowered bullshit, men just get told to go to work and get it done. There are no parades, just another assignment. I think most of the hate just comes from that word specifically. It makes most people just say, "if you can do the job, then just do it."
If you're gonna give flak for getting dislikes, this is the wrong site to get angry about it on. Plenty of people just bored at work that don't care at all.
Kudos on getting the MHO.20 Reply- +1 y
I'm not condoning how some people react to it but it's probably one of these reasons:
1. They feel like they no longer valued as a "provider" which is the role we are culturally conditioned to fit.
2. They feel like this empowerment is overcorrecting because women have had a lot of the rights they're suddenly proud of for decades and are only just using it as a way to put themselves on a pedestal10 Reply - +1 y
1111 50 Reply Same reason white people didn't like black/Hispanic/Native american/Asian empowerment. They think they are better than you guys. Why don't people want gays to get married etc etc etc. People are brainwashed and don't realize it because they are brainwashed. It's so sown into everyday life.
00 ReplyI'm not, I'm in favor of it, as long as women or girls don't act condescending and rude like men. Because if women do that they are no different then the men they complained about after all these centuries. I've always said if I was a CEO of a company I would make sure there was no pay discrepancy between men and women and there is equality not inequality.
10 ReplyWho knows, honestly it makes know since unless you feel an adequate.
or unless you're scared that somebody's going to over it throw you or whatever.
Perhaps I just want to feel in control at this proverbial title that history has put up on males his true in some way even though it literally is just that a title it doesn't really have any meaning.03 Reply- +1 y
Nobody is threatened by women's empowerment, but on the other hand the entire human society is threatened by feminism. And you seem to be confusing the two.
Plus this question seems more like you wanted to advertise yourself rather than actually ask something and have a point.01 Reply I think guys wrongfully assume women's empowerment has to mean male emasculation.
Empowering women doesn't mean men have to give up their man hood, but I think some guys assume wrongfully that's what it would take.02 Reply1.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. i do not fear women having more power how ever i do fear women not letting men go after them anymore. I am happy that women are getting more jobs and our doing more i am thankful for that actually it means we get more money and it also means less women will be broke i do how ever fear the day and it will come when men and women are no longer together
00 Reply- Show More (85)
Show More(140)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions