Feminism

Also, wouldn't hurt you to learn how to use the quote tags, would it?
Not quite rocket science.

Henry Quirk wrote:

"I suggested a way for you to evidence the validity of your claims."

Already did that, to my satisfaction.

The argument being that science also uses samples to extrapolate general trends.

We all use samples.
When we wish to deduce a person's personality/character we use our experiences with them, adding to it by sampling other people's opinions and dealings with them.

A rule is always based on a small sample.
The size is important but also the sampler's analytical ability, or his ability to perceive patterns.

The larger the sample, the more accurate the trend.

"There are 3.6 million reports of child abuse in the US every year."

As I say up-thread: Many of the stats foisted up (to illustrate the numbers of women and children abused) are based on arrests, not convictions and so -- in my experience -- are suspect.

So -- yeah -- there are a great many claims of domestic violence.

#

"quote tags"

I like the way I do things.

##

"size is important but also the sampler's analytical ability, or his ability to perceive patterns"

Yep.

Even if the claims stats are inflated, just by looking at the number of children who are removed from their homes due to neglect and abuse, which is as close to factual as you can get considering that in these cases there was an investigation and a court ruling deciding that the home is unfit for the child, you can tell that the problem is staggering.

Quote :

One of the major reasons children enter foster care is abuse and neglect associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse (USDHHS, 1999). As of September 30, 2004, 517,000 children lived in foster homes because they could not safely remain in their own homes. In 2005, one-fifth (21.7 percent) of victims or 317,000 children were removed from their homes as a result of child maltreatment investigations. Some children spend weeks or months in care, and others live in care for an entire year or longer (USDHHS, 2007).

If you want to be even more factual than that, consider the fact that on average 5 kids die every day from child neglect or abuse.... in the US... a rich 1st world country.
Doesn't get any more factual than a fucking death certificate, does it?

Half a million is a big drop from 3.6 million, but still, to say:

Henry Q wrote:

Sure, excepting where you say "domestic violence is common".

I say it's not.

quite honestly, is beyond ignorance. It's plain delusion/denial.

Funny part is, I don't know why you care at all about my bullshit-meter, enough to even reply to my posts. If you don't care about abused kids... really, if you can write those numbers under neglectable and ignore them, why don't you just ignore me too? Who gives a shit.

"just by looking at the number of children who are removed from their homes due to neglect and abuse...5 kids die every day from child neglect or abuse"

Children are regularly removed from homes without the intervention of the courts, based solely on a complaint and an arrest.

You do yourself a disservice relying on 'the numbers'.

#

"why don't you just ignore me too?"

As you like.

Henry Quirk wrote:

Children are regularly removed from homes without the intervention of the courts, based solely on a complaint and an arrest.

Read the USDHHS reports. They're public.

Quote :

You do yourself a disservice relying on 'the numbers'.

I don't solely.

Quote :

"why don't you just ignore me too?"

As you like.

Likewise, along with whatever other unsubstantiated nonsense you post.

I suggest to take referential by doing some field work, go into community centers and talk to people, but apparently I am a bleeding heart for suggesting that.
So stats are no good and field experience is no good. Stick to delusions as third best. THUMBS UP!

Feminization anyone?




Academic being formal knowledge, and the repetition of the official narrative.
Not surprisingly women do well in this mirroring of what is up-to-date and considered "self-evident" in any particular culture, and time.



But let's be nice...

Remaining loyal to the Modern tradition which only permits criticism from within the group, because when it comes from without then only hatred and violence can explain it - except when it comes to white males, because everyone can critique them - I offer some critiques from women.

The Modern tradition, now ritualized, is a form of censorship, of course.  



In victim psychology the failure of an idea(l) is not blamed on the idea(l) or on the self for having overestimated it, or for having been convinced by a lie, but the reason is sought elsewhere...in the evil other...






"How did we get here?", she asks, and here we have an entire forum dedicated to explaining just that.

"stats are no good and field experience is no good"

Stats are good (if accurately drawn [often, they aren't]) and field experience is good (if unbiased).

My stats are good (as I gather the raw data myself) as is my experience (close to the bone, dealing with the facts themselves, not the 'interpretation' of facts).

*shrug*

##

"the reality of being a man is lost in hyperbole"

And turned into 'liability'...useless (or, dangerous) 'organs'...vestigial reminders of a kind of 'thinking' best discarded (if the communitarian utopia is to come).

Henry Quirk wrote:

"the reality of being a man is lost in hyperbole"

And turned into 'liability'...useless (or, dangerous) 'organs'...vestigial reminders of a kind of 'thinking' best discarded (if the communitarian utopia is to come).

When women raise little boys with no real man around the boy either becomes a pussy, a carpet for others to walk on, or a raving madman, out to prove that they are some movie caricature of what a "real man" is supposed to be like.
Amputating the identity from the apparent is nihilism: the detachment of the noumenon, the idea(l), from the phenomenon, the real.
This disconnection is felt, at first, as a liberation from existence...a relief, freedom.
This "freedom" terrifies, forcing most to then attach themselves to the first identifier they find around them...the popular or something they want to be, something they are told they ought to be, not from a genetic but a memetic standpoint.

But, as a man, I cannot speak openly, unless I am willing to risk all sorts of attacks - one person hurt can produce a silence and censorship - so I'll let these women do it for me.
Listen to the last woman and her mentioning of threats and abuse as a form of censorship on the internet.

I have little to add but a theory on why and how this came to be.

I have a huge crush on camille paglia.

A red mark on her chest...her boyfriend/girlfriend must be beating her up...or a lust mark.



Rogers was an MRM?!!!


She's insulting, condescending, and influential...so she must be some kind of cult leader.

Her real name is known, and, I bet her address and phone number, as well...so only one good way to shut her up and make it all go away.
As if her being silenced will make what she describes disappear.

I can hear the applause...and the whispering.

The Christina Hoff woman makes a good point about the "therapeutic approach" to adult men and children in the tyranny of niceness video. It's almost as if children in public education are educated under the supervision of pseudo-therapist "teachers"/enforcers, "monitoring" for bad behavior, hyper-vigilant to correct anything "impolite"... Part of the tyranny of niceness seems to be this idea that any false front is acceptable as long as you maintain a certain "respect" for the superficial balance that upholds the "order" of "civilization"... niceness is falsely equated with being civilized, and any departure from this somehow threatens order itself(ironically).... any false front is acceptable because you can always fall back on science now, all disagreements essentially agree with the distant idea that science will sort out the complexity of the disagreement in the future, so niceness also becomes a keeping cool and calm, but it's a smug coolness... it's almost as if there is no appropriate time now to raise your voice.... unless someone "threatens" the "balance"... Then you literally get the rallying cries of victims, the collective maniacally gathering support(by any means now(everyone is a "strong victim") to defend all the "progress" that's been made, "how far we've come" as a "nation/people/all-inclusive human race"...to be "nice" is to be apart of the "good" fight, should the time ever come to fight... like a keeping yourself in an awkward reserve to fight a depraved fight....people are on edge because they are so detached from conflict.., conflict can only be resolved by mediating with those politically correct ideas and "proven" approaches that keep all conflict from actually conflicting with the cherished utopian mood of niceness... like the idea that if there are "corrections" to made, they WILL only be made from certain starting points... the stranglehold on divorce/custody laws and public education curriculum., but all with that feminine touch/grip so it doesn't seem threatening, the laws that seem so harmless until you have to deal with endless bureaucracy and legal entanglements... so an atmosphere of avoidance that is re-supported(and that everyone psychotically keeps working on) by the laws we really don't want any part of... but avoid as much as possible, so as to feed as much as possible... until you can't feed with the same energy as before, but now you don't have any energy for much else except to defend the structures that allowed you the "peace" and "comfort" to reach whatever humble wisdom with the world you think you've gained.

Schools don't make good thinkers, only good workers.

Now that the internet is slowly declining towards a reflection of "real" life, and all will be reduced to a low hum of inane white-noise, let us reminisce, and perhaps, like us "Neanderthals" and primitive ones, recall with some affection the past before we return to the hummmmmmm....



Do I remain hopeful?
No.
Quantity has already drowned quality.
Just look at the art scene.
Some obscure pockets of resistance slowly being buried in an avalanche of crap.
Art not to raise the average, but to feed into its primal needs, and allow it to remain comfortable there.
to sell, to make money, to be popular means to feed into the base...or the lowest-common-denominator, reinforcing it and contributing to its slow decline.
The "pockets" become friction point , the seismic fault line of increasing disparity.
A low rumbling, sometimes exploding in a shaking up, but mostly silent...escaping the attention of the majority.

It's called censorship using peer pressure.
A systemic method of enforcing mind-control while seemingly remaining indifferent to the debate.
A self-enforcing method not requiring any external overt force...unless required.  

All has become reduced to mass consumption.
All know everything, or have access to data, and data interpretations, helping them in their desire to be part of the average.
Those, amongst them, needing to belong and still stand apart as above the average, will use obscure references and not so popular sources to pass on the pretense of knowing more than the average, while still remaining true to it.
The usage of the rare, or the yet to become popular, implies without stating.
It implies an association, without having to provide evidence. By implying it can reserve the possibility to deny, or to then abandon to proceed to the next yet to be trendy obscurity.    

But I've already said too much, when silence suffices to bring about the inevitable.




Statistics are not immune to social coercion.
Data is manufactured by the asking, and the form the question takes, but also interpreted by "professionals" passing on the shared ideals, and popular positions.

The modern female ideal in the west, or at least in America, has been male. This focusing on career has made the American male become like a male in the wild, as can be seen from the culture. Large, engorged sexual organs and the desire to have as many sexual partners as possible. This is contrasted by the east, where femininity is subjugated by islam or family values.

The court system and schools have replaced the family. The man is nothing but a means of providing financial support for the female, who can raise children and do everything a man can do without his help. However, he must pay, but he can't have any say in raising his children. Just look at him, he must be violent, he must be mean. But the female can do anything a man can do, while remaining true to the social norms of the time. Perhaps the boy won't grow up to be a threat to society if he was never taught that he has a pair of balls, or to stand up for himself.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Where are the fathers of those boys? Why aren't they represented? This is a broken family, not a role-model at all.

George, City
"I do not believe the people of Birmingham would like to be known as a city proud that single unmarried mothers are the norm. Liberalism and political correctness gone daft again."

oh_dear, Swindon
"And the hundreds of single dads are represented where? What a shame this type of family is seen as the norm to the point of a statue being made to 'celebrate' it."

Two single mums (one pregnant), their children – and not a dad in sight. Birmingham’s £100k vision of the modern British family!
Gillian Wearing invited Birmingham residents to nominate the most 'real' family in the city to be immortalised

FictionFighter
"Don't worry kids, the state is your new daddy now, good old daddy socialism. God help us."

BisonJones
"Hahaha....I bet feminists will be proud. I feel sorry for the way this world is moving forward. We already see the devastation on girls and particularly boys of not having a father figure in the family. Yet, in parts of Britain it seems to be embraced."

Two single mums (one pregnant), their children – and not a dad in sight. Birmingham’s £100k vision of the modern British family!

- Based sculpture on the Jones family made up by sisters and single mothers Emma and Roma and their children

- The £100,000 bronze artwork was unveiled in Centenary Square outside the new Birmingham Library today

- The absence of any adult male figure has drawn criticism with one charity saying interpretation is 'most bizarre'

- Birmingham Yardley MP John Hemming, a Lib Dem, also questionned why public money had been spent on project

- Artist created similar sculpture in Italy six years ago - consisting of a more conventional mother, father and two kids

"White Men Don't Catcall. They Harass In Other Ways."

Quote :

Then, Wednesday, as the video reached more eyes, some people—including Slate’s Hanna Rosin—noted another potential flaw: Hollaback edited out nearly all the white male catcallers. “The video also unintentionally makes another point,” Rosin writes, “that harassers are mostly black and Latino, and hanging out on the streets in midday in clothes that suggest they are not on their lunch break.”

In a statement explaining the absence of white guys in the video, Rob Bliss of Rob Bliss Creative, the firm that partnered with Hollaback on the video, said, “We got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing or off camera.” I’d bet this is because, as Bliss gets at in his quote, white men, on average, don’t catcall in the same way that men of color do—and oftentimes, as I’ve learned, they don’t do it at all.

That, of course, is not to say that white men don’t have their own predatory nature—one that is expressed in ways unique to their privilege. As we know from countless court cases, it’s not that white men don’t hassle women (or rich white men, as Joyce Carol Oates implied this week in a tone-deaf tweet), it’s that they do it in a different way.

For all men, harassment of women has more to do with establishing power than it does sexual interest; they do it to control space, both public (the very street you both walk on) and personal (a woman’s self-set boundaries). Men of color catcall vocally and visibly on the sidewalk because they have to—not that there’s ever excuse for harassment. They need the “Sexy!” and “Smile!” to create the illusion of dominance in shared public spaces that social constructs and institutional racism have never afforded them control over.

White men, on the other hand, have no use for that sort of catcalling. They marked their territory centuries ago[colonialism]. So, instead, their sexual harassment is less invasive (“in passing,” as Bliss puts it) and harder to recognize—even when it’s staring you in the face. They do it in bars, at parties, on the frat row at your local college campus, in boardrooms, and other places men of color are never privy to, at least not in positions of power. As a biracial woman of color who, despite being half-white, likely “reads” black to many people, I've walked into parties thrown by traditionally white fraternities and bars with a diverse crowd, and white guys have gawked at me ever so slightly, engaging with me as they would an exotic animal at a zoo. Particularly when I'm in a group with other women of color, they circle us, giving off cues to dance in a way that suggests it's nothing more than a social experiment for them; it's as if they're wondering, "what's it really like to dance with a black girl?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So "white guys" catcall "in passing" and "ever so slightly"...

In the original "10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" video you can't see the like/dislike count.  And at the end of the video they redirect you to their non-profit organization "Hollaback!" so you can donate to the cause of ending street harassment.  So you have to wonder, to what extent are women in general(in America/western nations) not appalled that the drive for funds is directed to "ending" something that is relatively harmless(catcalling (where America and similar countries still provide the public with a high degree of safety)) and not at the more "serious" problems women face in developing countries, where brutal violence is the norm.  Why didn't the video end by downplaying this "harassment" so they could use the high viewer count to draw attention to the violence against women in the middle east, or in Juarez Mexico or Africa etc etc... And if they are not appalled doesn't this speak to a preoccupation with woman's immediate needs, or will they say something to the effect that we can't let the issue of street harassment "escalate", it's a "real problem" that women "face" everyday, and that the "victimization" of women takes many forms that can't go unnoticed, it's all interconnected... Yet... what does this non-profit actually do with its money, especially when women in others countries are literally in crisis?  And doesn't this speak to how the slightest unpleasantness felt is trolled into a critical concern in western nations?  Blowing up a small concern(excessive preoccupation) that is then filtered down into a body of people at each others' throats, preoccupied with "bigger" concerns like making money and getting laid...until a "balanced" view of the situation can be loosely compromised on... "maybe we men should let up a little" "maybe we women are blowing things up too much"...

perpetualburn wrote:

"In the original "10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" video you can't see the like/dislike count.  And at the end of the video they redirect you to their non-profit organization "Hollaback!" so you can donate to the cause of ending street harassment.  So you have to wonder, to what extent are women in general(in America/western nations) not appalled that the drive for funds is directed to "ending" something that is relatively harmless(catcalling (where America and similar countries still provide the public with a high degree of safety)) and not at the more "serious" problems women face in developing countries, where brutal violence is the norm.  Why didn't the video end by downplaying this "harassment" so they could use the high viewer count to draw attention to the violence against women in the middle east, or in Juarez Mexico or Africa etc etc... And if they are not appalled doesn't this speak to a preoccupation with woman's immediate needs, or will they say something to the effect that we can't let the issue of street harassment "escalate", it's a "real problem" that women "face" everyday, and that the "victimization" of women takes many forms that can't go unnoticed, it's all interconnected... Yet... what does this non-profit actually do with its money, especially when women in others countries are literally in crisis?  And doesn't this speak to how the slightest unpleasantness felt is trolled into a critical concern in western nations?  Blowing up a small concern(excessive preoccupation) that is then filtered down into a body of people at each others' throats, preoccupied with "bigger" concerns like making money and getting laid...until a "balanced" view of the situation can be loosely compromised on... "maybe we men should let up a little" "maybe we women are blowing things up too much"...

Good points, and exactly what I was telling Heathen sometime back. In some developing countries, the practice of killing female babies on birth for being female is still prevalent, but maybe that is an extreme assymetrical analogy, if we were to relativize comparisons. I think a likely answer to your question on funds being directed towards something as ending catcallings is because it is viewed as immediate, urgent in the now, in everyday life, where the funds donated can be visible and tracked and observed for the effects it may have, as compared to overseas donations where one is not sure whether and how it is used. I'm bemused by the kind of laws that are needing to be passed now. The complexer a society gets, the more simplistic the laws need to become. Pretty soon, it will be a crime if there were No catcalls, and women felt hurt and unappreciated and stigmatized and maybe even 'degraded' by the lack of attention.
Then not only laws, even 'degradation' will have taken on a new level.

Somewhat related:

Another... ha

Men are so frustrated that "saving" a woman in distress is more about justifying a desire to fight(unleash the caged breast) than it is about doing something "right"... like it's one of those few situations where they might be legally justified to use violence, so they're gonna take it... they're so ready to "intervene" and literally sacrifice their health when a woman is just talked to in a derogatory way, yet are speechless when it comes to the feminization of the world, when intervention is more difficult and needed... If a couple are fighting in public, even if both parties are raising their voices, the onlookers become inexplicably obligated to assert their "protective role" and reassert "order" once the escalation hits a big enough nerve(and how little this takes... and the "order" is one of the maternal state). This is better exemplified by verbal confrontations between men and women, where the observing men become the intervening "voices" of the state(where every woman is presumed innocent, and if the men have been hurt by women in the past, this is their chance to "save" their image of woman..."that's not how you talk to a lady" etc...also, you can't "disturb the peace") , because it's a much more natural reaction to intervene if someone is being physically abused(but even then, you never know what might of led to the violence...it's one of those things you just have to be very good at feeling out at a moments notice).

The examples in the videos seem over the top, and in real life, "domestic abuse" is more about certain types of people finding each other, living out their karma, like they're just stuck in a cycle, the man being unable to properly channel rage finding the woman who keeps finding herself with "no choice"(at least in first world countries)...and she's always the bigger victim, but I'm sure the "abuser" can be a victim too now... like two people subjugated by an inability to overcome their situations, unleashing their frustrations on each other

First thing to remember is that this is not about you but about protecting and allowing women to be strong, and independent, expressing fearlessly the fullness of their sexuality; the type that intimidates the average male.

When on the street never indulge in catcalling, or any form of objectifying sexual innuendo.
Your eyes should be focused forward and blank, showing no emotion and no intent, which may cause discomfort to any female.
Never look at a woman's body, no matter how she flaunts it.
She's taking advantage of her god-given right to express herself, and should not be bothered by creeps on the streets when she goes out for a stroll half naked.

Refrain from making eye-contact for over 3 seconds.
This might be misconstrued as aggression and make some woman feel uncomfortable.
If you are going to compliment a woman, because withholding affection is also a form of violence, make sure it's something a brother would say about his sister:
"Nice hair" or "I like your nails".
If a pretty girl is there with her fat ugly friend, also compliment her friend.
Traumatizing women by objectifying them should not result in some other form of insecurity.
Your speech should be bland and with zero sexual overtones. Male sexual expression might cause psychological harm to innocent women.  

If you're a big guy try to make yourself as non-intimidating as possible.
Assume the fetal position, shrinking as much as possible, so that no female is ever made to feel threatened by your presence.

Avoid social encounters where females, and alcohol will be present.
If you cannot avoid them make sure you remain sober at all times.
Drinking may result in unnecessary touching and vulgar sexual jokes that may land you in jail.
Remember, you are responsible for female choices, not them.

If you want to drink and socialize make sure it is only with men, when no women are present.
In fact, consider the option of becoming homosexual, for this would avoid all this bullshit.
If the idea makes you want to vomit, because you are a still primitive, un-evolved, not modern, and a homophobe, the only other option is "turning your back" on females, and practicing electronic celibacy: expressing your sexuality through technologies where no human needs to be present.
Porn is also a good option.

On the off chance a woman invites you over to her place, do not assume she wants to have sex with you.
Never assume anything at any time. Make your brain a blank canvas for her to scribble on whatever she wants.  
Even if during the course of your stay there she takes off her clothes and parades around naked, do not make the mistake of assuming that she wants something from you, other than the pleasure of your company.
She may be expressing herself, as strong, independent, modern, women are prone to do, or being naked in her home is what makes her comfortable...and her comfort is the only important factor.
If she makes it obvious that she wants coitus, and says something like "Fuck me" as she lies in bed before you, do not be tempted to take her bait.
This may lead to unnecessary biting, scratching, squeezing, thrusting, slapping, and eventually you in a whole lot of hot-water the morning after.
It, all, depends on what mood she wakes up in, and that's a risk you do not want to take.  

Inform the lady, without hurting her delicate feelings, that you are not the type of man who performs vulgar activities, like"fucking", and that you only pleasure a woman and "make love" to her.
If she goes into a tantrum where she taunts you with words like "What kind of a man are you?" or "Where have all the REAL men gone?", do not succumb to the shaming techniques.
Remain calm and focused.
We all know how stable and unchanging a woman's mind is.
Have confidence in her reason and her consistent moods.
It's been proven time and time again that in the end reason is what governs a woman's choices.  

Always have a consent form form in the ready - preferably notarized. Insist that she sign it if there is the slightest possibility that sex will happen in the near future.
A drug and alcohol testing kit is also essential.
Test her, before and after copulation. Have a accredited lab validate your findings before you begin thinking of having sex with her.
She will not be held accountable for her own actions like you will be if you "take advantage" of her in an inebriated or drugged state.
Even, after marriage, always have your lawyer on speed-dial. Consult with him, beforehand, if sex is immanent.
No matter how many years you are married the possibility of you being accused of rape is always present before and after every sexual encounter.

Coitus should, ideally, involve a sheet with a hole in it, so that no real physical contact is ever made, above what is necessary.
The male should lie on his back, and make his penis accessible, never thrusting his pelvis in any way, because this might be taken as an aggressive act, and be labeled rape.
Women should never, at any time, be made to feel uncomfortable, or like she's a sexual object.
Let her pleasure herself using the penis without ever imposing your will over hers.
If at any time she loses interest, and no longer wants to have sex, then accept her decision without a challenge.
Get dressed and go home to masturbate.



Remember, women are highly evolved creatures and superficial things like looks do not matter to her.
And if you do not buy into this crap, because you are not an emasculated imbecile, make sure you never express your opinion openly.
Repress, repress, repress...
Never distress, distress, distress...
This, too, is rape.  
An opinion's health is judged by how well it adheres to popular beliefs.
Make sure you repeat those when females are around, increasing your social appeal, if not the sexual kind then pragmatical kind.

Money works when dealing with the more whorish types, but never tell them so.
Buy their affections, as you would a prostitute's and make it seem as if its all authentic and pure, if you can live with yourself and you can find pride in this kind of capitalistic, materialistic attitude.  
Purchase a woman's willingness and her tolerance levels, miraculously, increase.
If this is satisfactory to you, then you are a lucky man.
Do not worry, no matter how disgusting and unappealing she may find you, your material gifts will prevent her from straying, and then you can listen to her go on and on about how not superficial she is, and how she does not care about how a man looks.
 
Supporting her delusion that she is more evolved than men, because she can overlook not being attracted to a man for the sake of social, and material, gain, is always a must when dealing with females.
It's how their more lax standards, and superficiality, is masked with self-flattery.
Never, ever, make a female feel like she's selling herself for a benefit other than spiritual awakening or family.  


If you follow these steps then you can enjoy a healthy and fulfilling sexual encounter.
You might survive...not so sure about the species, though.
Good luck.

A female [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the same incident; nothing we dont already know about feminism:

Quote :

"And herein lies the hypocrisy of the liberal view on sexuality. For all the left’s talk of making every traditional sexual vice a laudable family model, they seem to be Germanically opposed to every facet of traditional male-female sexuality. You can be as outlandish and outspoken as you like about being gay, using sex toys, having an open marriage, loving BDSM, and any other previously private sexually outlying activity you might enjoy. You’ll be praised and uplifted for embracing your sexuality. But being a straight guy and verbalizing your appreciation for a woman gets you the same reaction as if you’d tried to rape her.

Like it or not, conventional sexuality and the male-female interactions that ensue are conventional for a reason; it’s how we’re designed to propagate the human race. But the problem with modern women’s advocacy is that, even while maintaining women are the same as men, they’ve turned a woman’s body into such a sacred space that commenting on a woman’s body, let alone being attracted to it, verges on sexual assault. They’re so intent on dismantling this supposed patriarchy that the very physical fact of having a penis and being hardwired to find women attractive is viewed as proof of your support of an oppressive society; your very chromosomes are an affront to women’s liberation.

As one friend put it, the left’s agenda isn’t just about making outlying sexualities acceptable and spreading tolerance. It’s about making conventional sexuality unacceptable so their own values have room to take the forefront. For all their talk about oppression and societal norms, the sexuality-driven left is worse than the system they think they’re replacing.

In fact, the bullying of the feminist left is worse than any sort of control the social patriarchy supposedly displays."

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:

If you go to see the woman, do not forget the whip.

Slight modification to this to bring it up to speed with modern realities...

Satyr wrote:

If you go to see the woman, do not forget the lawyer.