can't see this thread turning into cancerous radioactive shit anytime soon

Quoting for emphasis, and also welcome - I can see you are going to be a real asset to this community. You think straight and that's a good beginning.


Yes, patriarchy is actually oppressing both sexes, as it tends to discriminate younger/sensitive people. It's not just men dominating women, it is also men dominating other men, and the ones who are dominant are the ones who are truly wicked, disgusting fucks that deserve to be cut into pieces. Chechnya is the best condensed example of this. There was also an incident with a Muslim man in Russia (not even in Chechnya, which is even worse as this shit is not limited to that) who cried at the burial of his farther IIRC, and then was taped confessing that what he did is inappropriate for a man - he was forced to apologise for this behaviour, video taped and published. I didn't watch the video - just reading about was already horrifing.

good-old Also it is not even about waves of feminism. You may have encountered some horrible persons online, but they are not representative of feminism. I know feminist girls in real life, actual activists, not someone calling you "privileged" online, and they are very good people, very capable of empathy, some of them are gay. My experience so far was positive, in fact I found that lesbian part of LGBT+ community I entered for my own reasons is the one that is most good at providing actual emotional (and other kind of) support, something that cannot be said of transgender part. Still disagree with how that community is ruled though, because a lot of problems, even though acknowledged, are not getting addressed in a timely manner.

Perhaps the ones you were talking were not even feminists, but rather women who believe men have it too easy, and who thus are blind to your suffering because indeed, if you life is fucked it doesn't make you really good at acknowledging grief of others. But that attitude is not the same as feminism.

I do agree that there is a certain amount of men who doesn't have it as good as other men. I would also feel like that boy in the past, more sensitive, bullied at school, different than the average male, it just that for some reason my resentment didn't drive me finding feminism or other political ideologies, for some reason these never appealed to me. Also, I don't see patriarchy in all this. I only see human nature where of course the stronger and more confident will take over the more sensitive and weak. It's pessimistic in a sense, it's the world of Jordan Peterson where the confident lobster is beating the weakest lobsters, and that in a feedback loop gets bigger and bigger (the one who has more will grow even more, the one who suffers will go even deeper). And I try to understand it and get along with it. It's not as bad for me, I am alone never had a gf, but at least I have a job and a creative hobby and few friends and family,. I try to think it's not that bad (it's worse for some other men) and find equilibrium in reality.

The other way to think it is that there is this patriarchy or any other political reason that we have to tackle. But I fail to see it like this. Patriarchy is a bit abstract to me. How do you dismantle patriarchy? If in my perception, the reality where the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker just happens organically (as in my view it's all human nature), if we attack Patriarchy, it's first of all very loosely defined, it ends up having outraged people attacking whatever they find in riots (not realizing they might be attacking someone's home/store who also is trying to survive), feminists even non radical will define behaviours in men as patriarchal, but that can go for anything, even some "loser" nerds (who are part of these weaker men that nobody gives a shit about) will be targeted as they would assume it's their toxic masculinity. It's so loosely defined, and usually it's us suffering who want to steam off our frustrations into something. For some reason, when I was suffering from the same frustrations, feminism or politics never catched on me, they would never vessels of explaining my suffering. I went a bit on "I must suffer because I am different, maybe I am autistic, maybe I am this or that mental disorder". I stopped though self-identifying with the mental disorder (I don't think I am autistic or at least don't identify because it's few characteristics that might have other reasons) even if it's the closest I can think, the way my mind works makes me more over-thinking, coupled (or produced by) with some high neuroticism compared to the average male, so I was not far enough explaining the sources of my problems. But I try to find some equilibrium and thank god I never thought my problems are explained in feminist terms or political struggle classes (although mental disorders are usually the 4th pillar of how people explain their inequality, the first three are gender, race, sexuality).

But yes, I wish we lived in a world where we had a better more empathetic look at the poorest members of society, being poor economically or suffering in the mind or anything else. But activists have created theories about privilege classes based on the immutable characteristic, which is quite simplistic (and sometimes it might just be a grift or a cult mentality) and overlooks suffering men because of the idea that they must always be privileged. If you happen to be not white, not straight, not male and have your own fears and depression, there is a probability you will be attracted to these ideas as they seem to explain your own struggle. If I was born a woman, I am afraid I would have very possibly contracted feminism as the explaining of my suffering, or who knows maybe I would have been a badger woman who would deny it and have a different sense of life.

So? Historically, women couldn't do either, even if they wanted. Women couldn't become land owners, unless they were rich widows and extremely lucky. Otherwise they were stuck with their roles as housewives, so no real estate for them. The armed forces were off-limits until recently, and we can already see how well that is going; it's not a pretty sight. In the post colonial US, people had the right to vote if they were part of the fire-brigades in some states; that was the only way women would be able to cast a vote most of the time, provided they were allowed in these fire brigades.

It's also a shitty and unjust situation when only people who were rich enough to own sufficient land were allowed to vote. Owning 'some land' wasn't good enough; you had to own enough land.

Historically it was definitely a thing of men vs women based on people's roles in society during that era. There is also the problem that these old laws seem to assume people at large didn't do anything for society, because only being rich enough or maybe going to war was what mattered. That should tell you how fair these systems were.

Fuck, I served in Germany's federal army for 8 years and learned my trade there, but there's no way it would cross my mind that voting is a privilege that should be tied to doing my damn job like everybody else. You pull your weight the best way you know how, and you get to vote for your representatives. That shit goes without saying, man.

I am very much with Lobo here, at least in the sense that there is a very romanticized narrow minded version of the fight for voting rights, like it was always about women's suffrage and not that most people actually didn't really have the rights to vote. I know now that most people didn't have the vote, and circumstances were different depending if you were in UK or which state of USA, and they gradually got the right, both men and women.
Back when I was young, my perspective was "We were assholes, if I travel back to 1800 I will just be given the vote because I have a dick and it will be denied to a woman even if she is educated". That's what I thought, but oh boy I was wrong!

It was the suffrage movement. It wasn't the exclusively women's suffrage movement. We forgot history and present that this was exclusively women's fight, while there were men fighting for that, working class men, not the few rich elite. We can try to explain with the fact that more men should be land owners than women so the feminist interpretation must still hold on. But I bet if we look back in history, the majority of men would neither be rich. (I need to find a video I have seen on the subject long ago, showing that depending on the year and place (USA or UK) the percentage of voters gradually increase from something like 10% to what we have now, and rights were given gradually to both men and women. It's hard to find things now, because google or youtube is flooded with videos always celebrating the women heros of the movement and saying men just had the privilege and all that. My fear is that whoever controls the information, they will obfurscate history more, and since the culture is for obvious reasons very gynocentric, we might not know. I wonder how many things about history we also know wrong)

When MRAs are saying "men had to go to war for the vote" they are misunderstood. I have heard (from them, but I am pretty sure there are some article somewhere) that there was a tease for men to go to war so that they would get voting rights. And when some women fought for the vote, other women in society were against it. Not all women wanted it, and one reason was their fear that they would also be obliged to go to war if they were given rights. Only when this was lifted, it was like "oh well give me the rights to vote, since no responsibilities is tied to it". MRAs don't necessary want women to go to the slaughter machine (which war is), and I know there was a push in the USA to add women to the draft, but they try to make a point about rights vs responsibility. A lot of the things MRAs do, I recognize them as a push back of the dominating narrative. And I am pretty sure even things like the history of the voting rights were not exclusively men oppressors VS women oppressed. I am just afraid that because it's very favorable (and even for biological or social reasons) to always sound pro-women, we react negative to every other information that we think would undermine women's rights. But if you build rights on top of lies upon lies upon lies, it's going to collapse one day.

That's one of the reasons among others that I kinda insist on this (and am a big of fan of some sense making MRAs like the Honey Badger Radio that have taught me a lot). I don't like lies, especially whole history pushed in only one perspective or build upon lies. And these lies are feeding the narrative that women must demand things today because they are very angry they were oppressed for 2000 years. Any man who thinks that "we really treated women badly for 2000 years" would be reluctant to be the asshole today, and will give more things but don't ask for some responsibility in their bad behaviour. It will be an eternal justification like an original sin, allowing for more unlawfulness from one side and more pity from the other side. It's much more complicated in my mind, it's things that bother me and have to do with all that and how it doesn't tell the whole story but also affects society negatively.

Your argument is that you could vote two years early in exchange for soldiering? Service equals citizenship, hoo-rah.

Go back further. Also, I'm going to split this shit away from the community news. Nobody post anything for five minutes or I will break them with hammers.



edit: hammertime moratorium lifted.

It's cool, I find it tiresome to debate this crap to be honest, mostly because voting in the modern age is a fucking placebo anyway. Debating historical abuses is wasted effort, and smacks of making excuses for the catastrophic failure of this current generation of mentally retarded adult-children; it sounds like mindless noise when we're about to enter an entire epoch of eating shit for breakfast.

If voting was based on who has the biggest cock I'd win.

I don't have energy to debate this either, I think the discussion can be wrapped up. I just think that coming to agree on particular view on this is not that important, certainly not worth the risk of members getting confrontational with each other.

Lobo, your last post almost seemed serious.