Well if you're not willing to tell me how I'm wrong, then all you have is rhetoric to discredit my arguments. Ironic given that you accused me of using such a tactic.
Anyway, do enjoy your good laugh at my expense. What does it matter now anyway. Here we are talking on a suicide forum after all...
is one these harmful effects you not getting pussy?
The OP literally is just plagiarising talking points from top posts on r/nothowgirlswork
It's almost cosmic, and also comic, levels of cognitive dissonance lmao
Yes and no. If you're suggesting that I have a vested interest in promoting these topics, you're right. What can I say, I'm only human after all.
The consequences are the degradation of the family unit, the widespread disinterest in settling with a long term partner, and the devaluing of regular men as sexual partners or otherwise.
I'm sorry I don't follow. Where is the cognitive dissonance?
Your assumption is wrong except for a single point. No, I don't think women should be subjugated like they were 200 years ago. I have sisters who have demanding jobs, and I want nothing more than to see them succeed in life. But I know that part of that happiness is inextricably linked to raising a family.
Before I proceed any further, I'll make an assumption of my own. The way this usually goes is that we can't agree on (what I consider) basic premises:
1. Women are the gatekeepers to sex and relationships.
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our biology.
3. Raising a family should be a core value of any human society.
We most definitely do not agree on these premises.
1. Men can buy prostitutes if he wants to have sex. Both sexes must find a suitable partner for relationships.
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our choices in life. A women who studies to become a nurse, doctor, etc offers more to society than having children.
3. Freedom of choice should be the core value of any human society.
You say you want women to succeed, but in your only definition of success is; Rearing children. You are against women being independent to facilitate your definition of what their success is. You believe women's primary role is to have children. Men can choose their ambitions, but women can not.
Women have to forgo their jobs to be dependent on men and raise children. Men will not have to make the same sacrifices you are requiring women to make. The co-dependency is a one way street. He can live, survive, and make a living. She can not under this system. You can say you do not believe in the subjugation of women 200 years ago. You also conveniently believe in a system that will produce that very thing.
So, you were you partly right in saying that I believe feminism teaches women to not to be dependent on a man. Yes, I believe this is wrong. But I also believe that it's wrong to tell men that they shouldn't depend on women. A successful relationship, one that raises a family, rests on co-dependence between partners. Feminism seeks to eradicate this. Out of all the ways feminism tells women how to live their life, they always miss a crucial point: how to nurture a child.
Feminism does not seek to eradicate the family unit. Feminism advocates for the equal treatment of the sexes. You are admitting you want women to be dependent one another person. A asymmetrical dependency where women will depend on men for survival. Men will only depend on women for pleasure.
You're making the assertion that a woman's happiness is dependent on raising a family. This is a personal ambition that will greatly vary between people. Feminism is about allowing people to make that choice without being judged for it. Women will decide to have families when they are ready. Women who do not want families will not have them. It is not crucial for women who have no interest in raising children to be taught how to raise a child. Feminism did not make women stop having children. Feminism gave women the choice not to have them.
As for your point about career, the problem isn't that feminism teaches women to attain high positions because they have inherent value. It's teaching women to attain them because men are the ones who hold those positions
Feminism does teach women to attain high positions because of their value. It teaches women they can achieve just as much as their male counterparts. You claim women want to attain them because men hold these position. You do not consider that women may of desired reach their fullest potential in their field of study. Unlike what you may imagine, women do have dreams and goals outside of having children.
Furthermore, no discussion is had about the consequences of them having 8-10 jobs, as CEOs, lawyers, bankers, etc... Women are much better at rearing children than men. That's as self evident a fact as stating that evolution is a phenomenon in nature. If a woman doesn't bear the lion's share of this responsibility, a child will grow up with severe psychological defects. Thus, by encouraging women to work as hard as men, they will be far less inclined to raise a family and they will be far less inclined to find a partner to do so. This debases relationships to an absurdly casual level, and the temptation to try the next best thing time and time again is the inevitable result.
Paid maternity leave for raising children solves this problem. Parent-Friendly schedules can bring both the mother and father home to raise the children. The best outcomes for children has both parents in the home raising them. Humanity is no longer bound as tightly to nature as they were before. We should not build modern society's standards based on what is seen in nature. Morally bankrupt policies and practices can be excused by following the presumed natural order.
Instead of facilitating a system where women can do both you advocate for women not to be able to choose at all.
That's not really commenting on my point. The point I was making is that men are those who usually discuss this because men don't suffer as much as women when it comes to celibacy.
It does comment on your point. Men who usually discuss this on these forums talk about removing women's rights. They do not discuss issues found in relationship dynamics unless it brings them to call for the abuse of women. There is more to this than celibacy. This is seeing half the human population as lesser and as objects.
I'm sorry but that is just blatantly untrue. Men naturally seek sex more than women do. In fact not an hour goes by in a man's head where the thought doesn't cross his mind. Women can forego the urge much, much longer. I hope we can agree on this point if anything else. Anyway, as result it's typically men who will chase this particular outcome, and it's typically women who will agree (or disagree) to it happening. That's true in any context: nightclubs, relationships, remote villages in Indonesia, anywhere. Women are the gatekeepers to sex.
Men can get sex from prostitutes. The only gatekeeping there is in his wallet. Relationships on the other hand require work from both sexes to work. There is not gatekeeping done here. Prostitutes have existed throughout all of human history and hadn't vanished after 2020.
No, I'm not really following your logic here. But I think you're making the point that because women are the recipients of approaches and not the instigators, that affords them fewer opportunities. Firstly, they are perfectly within their rights to act as men do in this regard, so it's not restrictive in that sense. But even if we assume roles are fixed in this regard, women who would fall into the category of never being approached, and thus "gatekept" because they are too unattractive, would be an extremely small minority. I'm talking about women as a whole, not the outliers. Similarly, some men are so unbelievably attractive that they are consistently approached by women. They aren't really relevant to this discussion.
Ditto response above. The only way men are restricted from sex is by ignoring other avenues to obtain it. No different than a woman who is not approached, and does not approach any men herself. Either sex can pay for sex, or find someone who will have sex. There is no gatekeeping.
Incel just means involuntarily celibate. I'll grant you that there are many proponents of extreme views within those circles, but they're not a monolithic group. I haven't even implied that they should be denied certain freedoms and that they should be forced to act a certain way. What I am saying is that certain behaviours are harmful even if their negative effects aren't immediately apparent.
When the term incel is used it is not used to describe virgin men. It is used to describe a collection of behaviors deemed antagonist towards women. These behaviors you are listing do not exist. Many women want children but with the the world's current state it dissuades them from motherhood. Houses are unaffordable. Where are people going to raise their kids? There is not enough parential leave for mothers or fathers. How will they raise their kid and pay the bills? Feminism is not the problem. Society right now is.
Last edited:
Reactions:
sserafim, Abandoned Character, FadingDawn and 2 others
We most definitely do not agree on these premises.
1. Men can buy prostitutes if he wants to have sex. Both sexes must find a suitable partner for relationships.
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our choices in life. A women who studies to become a nurse, doctor, etc offers more to society than having children.
3. Freedom of choice should be the core value of any human society.
You say you want women to succeed, but in your only definition of success is; Rearing children. You are against women being independent to facilitate your definition of what their success is. You believe women's primary role is to have children. Men can choose their ambitions, but women can not.
Women have to forgo their jobs to be dependent on men and raise children. Men will not have to make the same sacrifices you are requiring women to make. The co-dependency is a one way street. He can live, survive, and make a living. She can not under this system. You can say you do not believe in the subjugation of women 200 years ago. You also conveniently believe in a system that will produce that very thing.
Feminism does not seek to eradicate the family unit. Feminism advocates for the equal treatment of the sexes. You are admitting you want women to be dependent one another person. A asymmetrical dependency where women will depend on men for survival. Men will only depend on women for pleasure.
You're making the assertion that a woman's happiness is dependent on raising a family. This is a personal ambition that will greatly vary between people. Feminism is about allowing people to make that choice without being judged for it. Women will decide to have families when they are ready. Women who do not want families will not have them. It is not crucial for women who have no interest in raising children to be taught how to raise a child. Feminism did not make women stop having children. Feminism gave women the choice not to have them.
Feminism does teach women to attain high positions because of their value. It teaches women they can achieve just as much as their male counterparts. You claim women want to attain them because men hold these position. You do not consider that women may of desired reach their fullest potential in their field of study. Unlike what you may imagine, women do have dreams and goals outside of having children.
Paid maternity leave for raising children solves this problem. Parent-Friendly schedules can bring both the mother and father home to raise the children. The best outcomes for children has both parents in the home raising them. Humanity is no longer bound as tightly to nature as they were before. We should not build modern society's standards based on what is seen in nature. Morally bankrupt policies and practices can be excused by following the presumed natural order.
Instead of facilitating a system where women can do both you advocate for women not to be able to choose at all.
It does comment on your point. Men who usually discuss this on these forums talk about removing women's rights. They do not discuss issues found in relationship dynamics unless it brings them to call for the abuse of women. There is more to this than celibacy. This is seeing half the human population as lesser and as objects.
Men can get sex from prostitutes. The only gatekeeping there is in his wallet. Relationships on the other hand require work from both sexes to work. There is not gatekeeping done here. Prostitutes have existed throughout all of human history and hadn't vanished after 2020.
Ditto response above. The only way men are restricted from sex is by ignoring other avenues to obtain it. No different than a woman who is not approached, and does not approach any men herself. Either sex can pay for sex, or find someone who will have sex. There is no gatekeeping.
Women are shamed for having many partners. Women are shamed for sex work. Promiscuity is praised in men. This is true.
When the term incel is used it is not used to describe virgin men. It is used to describe a collection of behaviors deemed antagonist towards women. These behaviors you are listing do not exist. Many women want children but with the the world's current state it dissuades them from motherhood. Houses are unaffordable. Where are people going to raise their kids? There is not enough parential leave for mothers or fathers. How will they raise their kid and pay the bills? Feminism is not the problem. Society right now is.
I even warned by an admin for "insulting" an incel on here... which is absolutely ridiculous, considering what these people believe and how they act towards others.
Galante and Small operated the site for years as a "pro-choice" forum supporting members' decisions to live or die. It has about 40,000 members worldwide.
Small reportedly described the site as "a place where people can freely speak about their issues without having to worry about being 'saved' or giving empty platitudes."
Both Galante and Small have described themselves as "incels" – involuntarily celibate.
And it also seems the people most interested in removing the site from the Internet are in fact uniformly anti-incel. Why are you so ideologically in lockstep with those who seek to take this site away from us?
On a personal level I have very little use for the incel ideology, but to deny that it runs to the roots of this site is risible. Fortunately it is easy enough to ignore. I recommend you do so.
It was mean. I do feel bad for being so. But we have to. There are post where women are complaining about their problems and incels come in and attack them.
I was bullied when posting my self harm pictures. They join this forum because they know women are considering suicide and want to push them to do it. They say women should not have rights. They only care about money. Everything else.
If it takes being mean to have a right to be on this platform as a woman so be it. Misogynist incels blaming women for being raped and abused made it this way.
Last edited:
Reactions:
Jorms_McGander, sserafim and FadingDawn
It is a pernicious little meme isn't it. It's not hard to pick them apart, it's just disappointing that extremists feel entitled to spread their prejudices at all.
I have prejudices too; I'm just a grown-ass man so I keep them to myself.
Incels are losers, even to a loser. Sorry. But if you don't accept and cope with your own suffering, you might as well be neurotypical.
1. Feminism teaches women to compete with men.
2. Women are generally the gate keepers to sex and relationships.
3. As a consequence women suffer less than men when it comes to celibacy.
Please explain how the above is wrong. Because frankly, I would love nothing more than to think that I'm the only one to blame. At least that way there's hope if I were to work on myself.
Your assumption is wrong except for a single point. No, I don't think women should be subjugated like they were 200 years ago. I have sisters who have demanding jobs, and I want nothing more than to see them succeed in life. But I know that part of that happiness is inextricably linked to raising a family.
Before I proceed any further, I'll make an assumption of my own. The way this usually goes is that we can't agree on (what I consider) basic premises:
1. Women are the gatekeepers to sex and relationships.
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our biology.
3. Raising a family should be a core value of any human society.
So, you were you partly right in saying that I believe feminism teaches women to not to be dependent on a man. Yes, I believe this is wrong. But I also believe that it's wrong to tell men that they shouldn't depend on women. A successful relationship, one that raises a family, rests on co-dependence between partners. Feminism seeks to eradicate this. Out of all the ways feminism tells women how to live their life, they always miss a crucial point: how to nurture a child.
As for your point about career, the problem isn't that feminism teaches women to attain high positions because they have inherent value. It's teaching women to attain them because men are the ones who hold those positions. Furthermore, no discussion is had about the consequences of them having 8-10 jobs, as CEOs, lawyers, bankers, etc... Women are much better at rearing children than men. That's as self evident a fact as stating that evolution is a phenomenon in nature. If a woman doesn't bear the lion's share of this responsibility, a child will grow up with severe psychological defects. Thus, by encouraging women to work as hard as men, they will be far less inclined to raise a family and they will be far less inclined to find a partner to do so. This debases relationships to an absurdly casual level, and the temptation to try the next best thing time and time again is the inevitable result.
And this is not me saying that we should jump to the opposite end of the political spectrum on this matter; to completely subjugate women and force them to live life as breeding machines, or whatever caricature you might have of my position.
That's not really commenting on my point. The point I was making is that men are those who usually discuss this because men don't suffer as much as women when it comes to celibacy.
I'm sorry but that is just blatantly untrue. Men naturally seek sex more than women do. In fact not an hour goes by in a man's head where the thought doesn't cross his mind. Women can forego the urge much, much longer. I hope we can agree on this point if anything else. Anyway, as result it's typically men who will chase this particular outcome, and it's typically women who will agree (or disagree) to it happening. That's true in any context: nightclubs, relationships, remote villages in Indonesia, anywhere. Women are the gatekeepers to sex.
Ditto my previous point... Why do they approach women more..
No, I'm not really following your logic here. But I think you're making the point that because women are the recipients of approaches and not the instigators, that affords them fewer opportunities.
Firstly, they are perfectly within their rights to act as men do in this regard, so it's not restrictive in that sense.
But even if we assume roles are fixed in this regard, women who would fall into the category of never being approached, and thus "gatekept" because they are too unattractive, would be an extremely small minority. I'm talking about women as a whole, not the outliers. Similarly, some men are so unbelievably attractive that they are consistently approached by women. They aren't really relevant to this discussion.
That isn't true anymore. Virgins before marriage are generally considered an oddity in this day and age.
On that we agree.
Incel just means involuntarily celibate. I'll grant you that there are many proponents of extreme views within those circles, but they're not a monolithic group. I haven't even implied that they should be denied certain freedoms and that they should be forced to act a certain way. What I am saying is that certain behaviours are harmful even if their negative effects aren't immediately apparent.
You're so backwards. Your beliefs are outdated. Are you stuck in the 19th century or something? Happiness is not linked to raising a family. Also, not everyone wants to get married or have a family. Stop pushing this onto other people. Women should be able to break out of the traditional mold if they want to. Not everyone wants to nurture a child. If you think that women's only role is child rearing and raising a family, then you're literally misogynist. Women are more than mothers and baby machines. They are people first and foremost. They are doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, etc
Last edited:
Reactions:
halleyscomet, ForsakenDial, EvisceratedJester and 1 other person
You are so backwards lol. Not everyone wants to get married or have a family. Women should be able to break out of the traditional mold if they want to
The consequences are the degradation of the family unit, the widespread disinterest in settling with a long term partner, and the devaluing of regular men as sexual partners or otherwise.
I'm sorry I don't follow. Where is the cognitive dissonance?
The "degradation of the family unit" isn't due to feminism and it's not due to women not giving you pussy. It's due to the fact that the nuclear family model that is promoted is just an flawed model to follow (originally, our ancestors would have had a more "it takes a village to raise a child" type of model instead) and because women don't want to have to put up with going into miserable and abusive relationships anymore. A lot of women, now that we have the option to, don't want to go through what many women from past generations had to put up with. Why would someone want to settle without bothering to explore their options first? Men haven't been devalued, women just have more options on what they want to do with their lives now.
While not all women want to go into a long-term relationship, many of the ones who do want to look around for someone they think they'd want to spend the rest of their lives with first, and there are cases of some women who decide that they want to stay single (whether it be temporarily or long-term) after getting out of abusive/toxic long-term relationships. There is no "widespread disinterest" in long-term relationships, it's just that most women are going about them differently nowadays because they don't want to make the mistake of being trapped in a bad relationship with someone.
Reactions:
Jorms_McGander, ForsakenDial and sserafim
It was mean. I do feel bad for being so. But we have to. There are post where women are complaining about their problems and incels come in and attack them.
I was bullied when posting my self harm pictures. They join this forum because they know women are considering suicide and want to push them to do it. They say women should not have rights. They only care about money. Everything else.
If it takes being mean to have a right to be on this platform as a woman so be it. Misogynist incels blaming women for being raped and abused made it this way.
These people get banned or warned rather quickly. Unless of course the post reeks with misandry in which case of course, as there are men here, some would get the urge to reply.
Yes actually; and as far as I can tell, I don't sound like a sweaty troglodyte reciting redpill talking points. "Can I have teh crumb of pussyyyyy plz"
These people get banned or warned rather quickly. Unless of course the post reeks with misandry in which case of course, as there are men here, some would get the urge to reply.
Yes actually; and as far as I can tell, I don't sound like a sweaty troglodyte reciting redpill talking points. "Can I have teh crumb of pussyyyyy plz"
Yes actually; and as far as I can tell, I don't sound like a sweaty troglodyte reciting redpill talking points. "Can I have teh crumb of pussyyyyy plz"
Um no. The post in question was concerned about incels attacking women when women speak out. I pointed out that they get banned Nothing was mentioned about supposed individuals taking people out of the suicide sphere into the Mano sphere but your attempt at a straw man is well noted
No you just sound like you were looking for something to complain about and found it
Um no. The post in question was concerned about incels attacking women when women speak out. I pointed out that they get banned Nothing was mentioned about supposed individuals taking people out of the suicide sphere into the Mano sphere but your attempt at a straw man is well noted
No, not all were banned; also yes, the Manosphere idiots did indeed harass women here and spammed some members, which is all recorded; I suggest you go step down and do something more appropriate for… your situation
No you just sound like you were looking for something to complain about and found it
Um no. The post in question was concerned about incels attacking women when women speak out. I pointed out that they get banned Nothing was mentioned about supposed individuals taking people out of the suicide sphere into the Mano sphere but your attempt at a straw man is well noted
Nah bro you want to draw a line between psychonoxious ideas and the behaviour they produce, but I know that thoughts are behaviour and I see no difference between subtle or direct attacks on women.
Oh and by the way everybody, the Incel we have discussed here, and on Halleycommet's thread, who said he wanted and does rape women, is actually not banned and totally active lmao.
Thanks, mods; but the rest of us, as meteora said, are threatened to be banned by making perfectly reasonable objections to what these people post
Reactions:
halleyscomet, EvisceratedJester and ForsakenDial
It was mean. I do feel bad for being so. But we have to. There are post where women are complaining about their problems and incels come in and attack them.
I was bullied when posting my self harm pictures. They join this forum because they know women are considering suicide and want to push them to do it. They say women should not have rights. They only care about money. Everything else.
If it takes being mean to have a right to be on this platform as a woman so be it. Misogynist incels blaming women for being raped and abused made it this way.
Hmm, that's entirely understandable. Continue on with your bad self, perhaps we'll bump into each other again :)
If I may... and if some of you fellows wanna be meanies to me too, have at it :P... that's kinda how I feel too. I became traumatized after seeing this thread. A goofy, lonely Southeast Asian guy, who never came back after a huge pile-on where there was a huge misunderstanding. Didn't call himself an incel or anything; but others called him an incel. And no one had the decency to even apologize, or intervene to stop future errors
It was just the needle in the haystack that broke the camel's back; it repeated in many variations
Maybe the origin was the suspicious death of a mentor of mine, who was a dedicated activist. His closest friends (almost all were women) told me about his relationships where he was rampantly abused. I was at his wake, where one explicitly feminist ex talked about cheating on him. (She got kicked out by the woman who was like his daughter.) His widow... well, people closest to him keep saying she did the deed. (She rejects identity politics & mainstream feminist culture, but... you know, it's complicated with activists.) I know her deeply, and I had to discover her evil for myself because no one warned me... Even though I'd "only" give her a 20% chance she did it.... that's still pretty bad, innit?
I never talked about why I'm here on sasu. Ok, that's probably the biggest reason why. He was like a father to me, and he was probably killed by a woman whose back I had
But my rot started earlier. In my first job, I had to intervene when a manager raped girls — not women, but GIRLS. Legalized child labor ftw! We won, but they fired me, and I didn't so much hate the rapist — he was obviously schizophrenic & should've never been forced to work — I hated all the bystandards who said "I'm not down with rape" but did nothing. I wandered homeless after that, because The Real World was ugly, and I wanted no part of it
And when I returned to jobs after that, seeing women crying alone in the lunchroom, and shit, gotta intervene again, helping them learn skills & bargaining power, so they could move strongly through the World of Men, and no man would ever have the power to humiliate them like that again
Game of Thrones world
Maybe this sums up why I'm on SaSu. Women shattered in the workplace. Men shattered in relationships. And it's not just the abusers, but the do-nothing onlookers
I know this sounds all weird. And oddly gendered. But I suspect people just don't see all the weirdness around them; they have blinders. Existence is like a strange dream
Guess I used to hate men. I tacitly identified more with women, because I perceived them as underdogs. Come to think of it, guess now I hate both main genders — each in their own way :P And that's lonely. Guess I'm still alive because I've accumulated a core of people who are truly decent & supportive, trying to wake from the dream. And I've jettisoned the rest from my life
1. Feminism teaches women to compete with men.
2. Women are generally the gate keepers to sex and relationships.
3. As a consequence women suffer less than men when it comes to celibacy.
[...]
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our biology.
3. Raising a family should be a core value of any human society.
Thanks for being so explicit about values & assumptions!
Hmm, there's a kind of translation problem. As I understand, you're viewing feminism through a conservative lens. So things can easily get lost in translation. Let's tighten the lingo & argument a bit, so you can be more effective at communicating with those on the other side of the culture war?
Feel free to skim/ignore this long post; but hopefully it'll save you time in the long run
1. Feminism teaches women to compete with men.
There's very different feminist traditions. What you're referring to is more precisely "liberal feminism". (Since leftists hate liberals, they call it: white liberal feminism, neoliberal feminism, etc. To make sure it sounds bad. You probably should too, even if it feels weird)
It's basically the state co-opting women's movements. Hillary Clinton feminism, what rightwingers call "feminazis" who bomb the limbs off brown kids. Cares about the glass ceiling, not the scary basement. Alienates many women. It serves the professional-managerial-bureaucratic class, which is about 20% of the population. Not workers/poor
Why are they oddly censorious, as we see here on SaSu? Well, that class was the ruling class of the Soviet Union — they ran it like one big corporation
Such neoliberals are all about competitive markets — like labor markets where you compete against your fellow worker. So I can see your point that it breeds antagonism. Like with citizens vs immigrants: divide & conquer dynamics. Turning everything into markets — anything & anyone can be bought/rented/sold as market commodities, even human intimacy — annihiliates not only community & traditional values, but the human spirit
2. Women are generally the gate keepers to sex and relationships.
I think the redpill rule of thumb is: women gatekeep sex, and men gatekeep relationships. That is, women tend to trade sex, in order to get a man's time & attention
In my experience, it often does work that way. Helps explain why many women complain that men pump & dump them, feeling somehow cheated after giving up sex
So I suppose sex is the #1 gate, controlled by the gal. Then relationship is the #2 gate, controlled by the guy. But from an incel's perspective, no doubt it looks like she controls both gates — because you gotta first get past gate #1
It's kinda funny, but I could reframe my relationships like workplaces. Gate #1's like the job interview. If I pass with flying colors, we reach gate #2, and I decide whether I wanna stick around :P
Workplace/relationship analogies really come in handy. That's how I helped women intuitively understand workplace dynamics! Why's a boss so relentlessly mean to her? Like a calculating boyfriend — breaking her down to erode her self-image, and thus her self-perceived bargaining power
3. As a consequence women suffer less than men when it comes to celibacy.
Up to a certain point, perhaps. And most immediately directly. But I hear there's a growing crisis of older women, losing chances to bear children with fathers & lock in relationships on favorable terms
Guys are now fully aware of their relationship-gatekeeper role, and increasingly play hardball. That's why the entire manosphere advocates breaking all solidarity with women, and strengthening bonds with other men. So we need women less, and can hold out for better deals
This is why conservatives are wary of redpillers. Because their vision of marriage requires solidarity & teamwork. Not calculating guys breaking apart their own families, or bringing home diseases
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our biology.
Yes, biology is a huge part of the foundation, as we're biological animals. (The professional-managerial-bureaucratic class pretends we're blank slates that they can program)
But our biology still can still give rise to many social possibilities. Because we are also social animals — and our brains aren't just hardwired with behavior, we can change a bit of it through "culture". And when we look at human history, we've built many different forms of traditional societies. Where, over centuries/millenia, they worked out cultural problems. Often with their own different cosmology of values
For example, why just nuclear families? Maybe communities should step up. Because raising those little beasts takes skill, and we can't expect all parents to be competent — they're just the ones who boinked. And most people frankly suck at their jobs! :P Plus it's lots of duplicated effort. I've helped with childcare, it's tiring & tbh boring. Let the kids from different parents bounce all their energy off each other. With some mod-like adults watching to make sure they don't stab each other's eyes or something
3. Raising a family should be a core value of any human society.
Yeah, I think raising children must be a core value. (Please anti-natalists, let this slide for once.) But it could be done by a town, community, extended clan, whatever. Not just the modern nuclear family. Which is what most of us have in mind with "family"
No, not all were banned; also yes, the Manosphere idiots did indeed harass women here and spammed some members, which is all recorded; I suggest you go step down and do something more appropriate for… your situation
Nah bro you want to draw a line between psychonoxious ideas and the behaviour they produce, but I know that thoughts are behaviour and I see no difference between subtle or direct attacks on women.
These people get banned or warned rather quickly. Unless of course the post reeks with misandry in which case of course, as there are men here, some would get the urge to reply.
That is not true. There has been other threads were incels have been attacking women and have not been banned.
This thread where he says all women are into hookup culture. This thread where Valso was banned, but not the guy saying women masturbate via animal corpses in their mouths. This thread where @obei was talking about her negative experiences causing her to be attracted to abusive people.
Misandry is not as common on this forum as incels attacking all women are.
No, they don't; as is obvious with several users. A warning is simply not good enough for rape comments/threats/defenses anyway. I suggest you step down, and appreciate your own position here
The mods again, proves the selves to be incompetent
That is not true. There has been other threads were incels have been attacking women and have not been banned.
This thread where he says all women are into hookup culture. This thread where Valso was banned, but not the guy saying women masturbate via animal corpses in their mouths. This thread where @obei was talking about her negative experiences causing her to be attracted to abusive people.
Misandry is not as common on this forum as incels attacking all women are.
Misandry basically has, if any, only the most marginal, fugitive, and vestigial presence; blatant or latent misogyny has however become shockingly common because the freedom of bigots is protected by a spineless and complacent mod staff;
No, they don't; as is obvious with several users. A warning is simply not good enough for rape comments/threats/defenses anyway. I suggest you step down, and appreciate your own position here
The mods again, proves the selves to be incompetent
Misandry basically has, if any, only the most marginal, fugitive, and vestigial presence; blatant or latent misogyny has however become shockingly common because the freedom of bigots is protected by a spineless and complacent mod staff;
I'm not gonna step down for shit. Link me a rape comment/threat where the user hasn't been warned or banned and just so you know, people usually get warned first before they are banned. This is how the forum works
I'm not gonna step down for shit. Link me a rape comment/threat where the user hasn't been warned or banned and just so you know, people usually get warned first before they are banned. This is how the forum works
Made what up? Did you deliberately fail to understand? The group you are dividing into two is one. "These people" is the entire manosphere from the self-justifying criminal, to the verbal abuser, to the youtuber distributing the philosophy to justify it.
Hmm, that's entirely understandable. Continue on with your bad self, perhaps we'll bump into each other again :)
If I may... and if some of you fellows wanna be meanies to me too, have at it :P... that's kinda how I feel too. I became traumatized after seeing this thread. A goofy, lonely Southeast Asian guy, who never came back after a huge pile-on where there was a huge misunderstanding. Didn't call himself an incel or anything; but others called him an incel. And no one had the decency to even apologize, or intervene to stop future errors
It was just the needle in the haystack that broke the camel's back; it repeated in many variations
Maybe the origin was the suspicious death of a mentor of mine, who was a dedicated activist. His closest friends (almost all were women) told me about his relationships where he was rampantly abused. I was at his wake, where one explicitly feminist ex talked about cheating on him. (She got kicked out by the woman who was like his daughter.) His widow... well, people closest to him keep saying she did the deed. (She rejects identity politics & mainstream feminist culture, but... you know, it's complicated with activists.) I know her deeply, and I had to discover her evil for myself because no one warned me... Even though I'd "only" give her a 20% chance she did it.... that's still pretty bad, innit?
I never talked about why I'm here on sasu. Ok, that's probably the biggest reason why. He was like a father to me, and he was probably killed by a woman whose back I had
But my rot started earlier. In my first job, I had to intervene when a manager raped girls — not women, but GIRLS. Legalized child labor ftw! We won, but they fired me, and I didn't so much hate the rapist — he was obviously schizophrenic & should've never been forced to work — I hated all the bystandards who said "I'm not down with rape" but did nothing. I wandered homeless after that, because The Real World was ugly, and I wanted no part of it
And when I returned to jobs after that, seeing women crying alone in the lunchroom, and shit, gotta intervene again, helping them learn skills & bargaining power, so they could move strongly through the World of Men, and no man would ever have the power to humiliate them like that again
Game of Thrones world
Maybe this sums up why I'm on SaSu. Women shattered in the workplace. Men shattered in relationships. And it's not just the abusers, but the do-nothing onlookers
I know this sounds all weird. And oddly gendered. But I suspect people just don't see all the weirdness around them; they have blinders. Existence is like a strange dream
Guess I used to hate men. I tacitly identified more with women, because I perceived them as underdogs. Come to think of it, guess now I hate both main genders — each in their own way :P And that's lonely. Guess I'm still alive because I've accumulated a core of people who are truly decent & supportive, trying to wake from the dream. And I've jettisoned the rest from my life
Thanks for being so explicit about values & assumptions!
Hmm, there's a kind of translation problem. As I understand, you're viewing feminism through a conservative lens. So things can easily get lost in translation. Let's tighten the lingo & argument a bit, so you can be more effective at communicating with those on the other side of the culture war?
Feel free to skim/ignore this long post; but hopefully it'll save you time in the long run
1. Feminism teaches women to compete with men.
There's very different feminist traditions. What you're referring to is more precisely "liberal feminism". (Since leftists hate liberals, they call it: white liberal feminism, neoliberal feminism, etc. To make sure it sounds bad. You probably should too, even if it feels weird)
It's basically the state co-opting women's movements. Hillary Clinton feminism, what rightwingers call "feminazis" who bomb the limbs off brown kids. Cares about the glass ceiling, not the scary basement. Alienates many women. It serves the professional-managerial-bureaucratic class, which is about 20% of the population. Not workers/poor
Why are they oddly censorious, as we see here on SaSu? Well, that class was the ruling class of the Soviet Union — they ran it like one big corporation
Such neoliberals are all about competitive markets — like labor markets where you compete against your fellow worker. So I can see your point that it breeds antagonism. Like with citizens vs immigrants: divide & conquer dynamics. Turning everything into markets — anything & anyone can be bought/rented/sold as market commodities, even human intimacy — annihiliates not only community & traditional values, but the human spirit
2. Women are generally the gate keepers to sex and relationships.
I think the redpill rule of thumb is: women gatekeep sex, and men gatekeep relationships. That is, women tend to trade sex, in order to get a man's time & attention
In my experience, it often does work that way. Helps explain why many women complain that men pump & dump them, feeling somehow cheated after giving up sex
So I suppose sex is the #1 gate, controlled by the gal. Then relationship is the #2 gate, controlled by the guy. But from an incel's perspective, no doubt it looks like she controls both gates — because you gotta first get past gate #1
It's kinda funny, but I could reframe my relationships like workplaces. Gate #1's like the job interview. If I pass with flying colors, we reach gate #2, and I decide whether I wanna stick around :P
Workplace/relationship analogies really come in handy. That's how I helped women intuitively understand workplace dynamics! Why's a boss so relentlessly mean to her? Like a calculating boyfriend — breaking her down to erode her self-image, and thus her self-perceived bargaining power
3. As a consequence women suffer less than men when it comes to celibacy.
Up to a certain point, perhaps. And most immediately directly. But I hear there's a growing crisis of older women, losing chances to bear children with fathers & lock in relationships on favorable terms
Guys are now fully aware of their relationship-gatekeeper role, and increasingly play hardball. That's why the entire manosphere advocates breaking all solidarity with women, and strengthening bonds with other men. So we need women less, and can hold out for better deals
This is why conservatives are wary of redpillers. Because their vision of marriage requires solidarity & teamwork. Not calculating guys breaking apart their own families, or bringing home diseases
2. Our ideal roles in society are shaped by our biology.
Yes, biology is a huge part of the foundation, as we're biological animals. (The professional-managerial-bureaucratic class pretends we're blank slates that they can program)
But our biology still can still give rise to many social possibilities. Because we are also social animals — and our brains aren't just hardwired with behavior, we can change a bit of it through "culture". And when we look at human history, we've built many different forms of traditional societies. Where, over centuries/millenia, they worked out cultural problems. Often with their own different cosmology of values
For example, why just nuclear families? Maybe communities should step up. Because raising those little beasts takes skill, and we can't expect all parents to be competent — they're just the ones who boinked. And most people frankly suck at their jobs! :P Plus it's lots of duplicated effort. I've helped with childcare, it's tiring & tbh boring. Let the kids from different parents bounce all their energy off each other. With some mod-like adults watching to make sure they don't stab each other's eyes or something
3. Raising a family should be a core value of any human society.
Yeah, I think raising children must be a core value. (Please anti-natalists, let this slide for once.) But it could be done by a town, community, extended clan, whatever. Not just the modern nuclear family. Which is what most of us have in mind with "family"
If you put your ideas behind an impractically massive wall of text, you will find far fewer opponents willing to engage and society will seem a lot more amenable than it actually is.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Why should they be mistreated for lacking access to sex?
