Are you a feminist?
Yes
30.5%
275
No
56.3%
507
Maybe/unsure/rather not answer
13.2%
119
901 votes
DayP said: It doesn't help many of the 'mouthpieces' of feminism in the public eye like certain people who are well known and reviled in video games, whose name is best left unsaid, often distort the truth and blatantly lie with misandrist garbage. "But I just said that, Wayponpon." and I know you did, but what I'm driving at is that when you have liars and self-righteously wrong people distorting the movement and convincing others, it devalues the cause with their extremist twist and lies on it. I don't believe Feminists as believes are all bad, but I believe the original purpose of Feminism is dead, replaced by attempts at female empowerment over men versus striving for true equality. Note, I am not negating the fact that there are plenty of 'true feminists' who have made great strives in closing the gaps between men and women, but as the gaps thin, these straw feminists distort the cause by introducing, well, strawmen that the 'trendy progressive' masses by into and it further corrupts the cause. I am not supportive of feminism purely on the principle that I am an egalitarian, but it's folly to deny that the arising of feminism has done a lot to progress the rights of women, but I feel the cause as it stands today is largely, at least in the eye of the public, has become a trendy market to push chasing the next boogeyman in the shadows to keep them on their soapboxes.I am a female feminist. The thing is, a lot of people who claim themselves to be "feminists" are actually misandrists. The definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." The last three words give it away. People who talk about men in a rude manner and put women above them are "misandrists". |
| "Dakimakura aren't meant for fucking." -Moog, January 2015 When a site's moderators warn you for condemning a troll, you know their moderators need to be changed out. |
YandereTheEmo said: The ways in which you perceive the world around you, which ties deeply into your own religious principles, are so inveterate You just taught me a new word! Inveterate. Good word, but not really applicable to my convictions; they have changed in the past and have been recently formed after much thought, so the word doesn't apply to my actual stance in either sense, regardless of how it came across in my writing. YandereTheEmo said: so inveterate that much of what you write becomes inherently unintelligible, or at the very least, irrelevant unless one presupposes religious principles and philosophy are, in some form, just or true. My decision to quote and expound on a passage in Deuteronomy was done in order to show that this particular zealous belief (viz: equality good; inequality bad) isn't new or progressive. Similar things have happened before, and even a religious prophet you don't take seriously saw it coming thousands of years ago. YandereTheEmo said: In this regard, there's no reason to expound on or spread such slews of information to those who do not adhere to the same faith, as rooting an argument's evidence nigh-entirely on the presupposition of verses being just and true, with much interpretation to come, is to null an argument rudimentarily against such principles. You're right in a sense. It's really easy for someone to read a small essay of sorts and switch off the moment they see a passage like that. Perhaps it would be better to show off why equality is necessarily a backward ideal? YandereTheEmo said: TL;DR - Progressivism is our new god. Let the devil into your soul and be free. Progress was one of the other names I've been toying with, funnily enough. [This false god] goes by many names, names which have been grafted onto other popular words. In a compelling perversion of the descriptivist mentality of word definition, it has stolen words for its own use, words that already had prior definitions that were both functional and colloquial. I’d honestly find that funny if it wasn’t so repulsive. The names that this false god has stolen for itself are multiple One of those names was progress. Progress implies a forward movement or an improvement. You have no way of knowing that a social change will truly be progressive, yet advocates of 'progressivism' will call any and every change they like 'progress', and any and every change they don't like 'an enemy of progress'. You can hopefully see what I mean by 'perverting the definition of words'. |
CaelidesuJul 25, 2015 12:56 AM
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
TheBasedNico said: Glad to know you disagree with me icirate. My point stands. Edit: Oh wait, I'm good... for now D: I . . actually don't really have a problem with the points you've been making. Sorry. We can argue about how FLCL is great if you want though c: |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| This is quite the surprising delight: having an opportunity to discuss something first-hand with icirate. Gushing aside, let's continue. icirate said: You just taught me a new word! Inveterate. Good word, but not really applicable to my convictions; they have changed in the past and have been recently formed after much thought, so the word doesn't apply to my actual stance in either sense, regardless of how it came across in my writing. The most important part of this statement is "how it came across in my writing." We, in the context of being bloggers, writers, and pathetic shit-lords consuming in seemingly-endless discourse on the internet, have to stand by what our words say about us, our character, and thus macrocosmically, our specific views and the value of such views. If one's writing imposes a sense of views being inveterate, it is the prerogative of the audience to tune out from such starkly cemented convictions. Twas my only point. My decision to quote and expound on a passage in Deuteronomy was done in order to show that this particular zealous belief (viz: equality good; inequality bad) isn't new or progressive. Similar things have happened before, and even a religious prophet you don't take seriously saw it coming thousands of years ago. There's a difference between prediction and observation of regularly occurring principles. People are inclined to force change, this is an observation of regularly occurring principles that, with murky enough wording, can be quickly twisted into a prediction of future conventions of human knowledge. Hence why you blog reveals an innate level of equivocality in the verses themselves. Perhaps it would be better to show off why equality is necessarily a backward ideal? Possibly, but I'm not at labor to suggest in that regard. One of those names was progress. Progress implies a forward movement or an improvement. You have no way of knowing that a social change will truly be progressive, yet advocates of 'progressivism' will call any and every change they like 'progress', and any and every change they don't like 'an enemy of progress'. You can hopefully see what I mean by 'perverting the definition of words'. "Progress" is rooted heavily in our knowledge of our own history, conventions, and generally shared moral precepts. In this sense, progressivism deals in our human contradictions, or those embraced by our long-standing policies and practices. Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of gays an lesbians? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. Progressivism is less abolitionist and more evaluative--or at least, it is supposed to be, however like most things hi-jacked by the feminist, social justice hate-mob, it has become a deluded movement of pseudo-actualization. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
JonasDaJay said: battosai-01 said: The problem with feminism and feminists is that they can only see the men at the top of the ladder. The CEO's, the politicians, the billionaires all those guys at the top of society, but guess what they are literally the 1%. Far more men can be found at the bottom of society in shitty dangerous jobs, in prison, homeless and at the end of a noose, cause they feel like they're lives are fucking worthless. What kind of sense does that make? Men are at the top of society, but it doesn't matter, because there are also men at the bottom of the society? It makes perfect sense actually. Because for example when feminist try to find salary caps to complain about they forget to put in there measurements all the guys getting zero salary that have a hard time getting a job etc. In more low jobs like a waiter or a cashier or bringing the damn coffee to the boss you find more women but it isn't because the guys got better jobs than them, is because those women can easily get those jobs and men got zero, they aren't preferred unless is something that needs big manual labor and is too hard for a woman. I've seen that first hand. Went i lost a job and i needed immediately something to make some money because i hand rent to pay every month or else be kicked out and i decided to just look for anything until i can find something better i quickly realized that for all the relatively easy low jobs every employer preferred a woman. A female can literally find a job in a week if it doesn't have big demands. A man can't and is many times something that is very manually hard that will give you back pains for your whole life. I even remember entering a few supermarket stores looking for staff and i was like "hire me, i am fast and organized and i can be a cashier and put things on the shelf and shit". The guy was like "What a cashier? Or in the store?" -"yeah, why not? I finished school and college i think i can handle counting change" -"Yeah, am sure you can but how about this position down in our storage?" Then i started thinking "Motherfucker! You want to put me unloading trucks and shit and carrying boxes because am a guy and you don't want me to be seen in frond because am a guy. Just say it you fuck!" I mean all of them had women in the frond of the store. Even if some were ugly they would still be preferred over some poor dude. Is like, yeah, ether you are applying for being the damn CEO of a company or just go away down in the dungeons were you can use your big muscles in breaking rocks and carrying heavy staff and no one will see your ugly male ass. (yeah a small exaggeration but that is a society trend more or less). |
Fizix said: Having read some of the replies. I don't think using online attention seekers as a gauge for anything is particularly intelligent. Are they feminists, mysandrists, mysoginists or just attention seekers looking for a rise out of people and/or the biggest audience possible? Considering people seem to hate these people so much, their opposition sure does like to give them an extended promotion. Feminism is a belief that women should be equal to men and not subjected to additional pressures or systematically objectified. People who go too far or are attention seeking don't change that. In other words, focusing on the most extreme element of a cause is just that, the most extreme element. Every cause has its extreme element and it will often be the loudest, most obnoxious face. The entire narrative framework feminism is grounded in is inherently flawed, but we are inclined, as a society, to humor it because of social and historical implications. Not only does it damage our legal system, but it belies our culture and the rights of groups deemed "privileged" by the hate-mob itself. We do have to consider online personas as, at the least, major contributing factors to the movement. For instance, Tim Hunt's initial criticism became relevant because of people whining on the internet, before spiraling into a campaign that had him completely excommunicated. The power we offer to perpetual victims with laptops is daunting. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: We, in the context of being bloggers, writers, and pathetic shit-lords consuming in seemingly-endless discourse on the internet, have to stand by what our words say about us, our character, and thus macrocosmically, our specific views and the value of such views. If one's writing imposes a sense of views being inveterate, it is the prerogative of the audience to tune out from such starkly cemented convictions. Twas my only point. Duly noted. It can be hard to not come across that way when arguing against a deeply held belief or principle of the audience, but I should have probably made more of an effort. YandereTheEmo said: There's a difference between prediction and observation of regularly occurring principles. People are inclined to force change, this is an observation of regularly occurring principles that, with murky enough wording, can be quickly twisted into a prediction of future conventions of human knowledge. Hence why you blog reveals an innate level of equivocality in the verses themselves. If my conclusions from reading those verses were nothing more than equivocation, why would the time be taken to use and define a term like 'froward'? I understand that what is (and was) happening seems to be part of human nature, and the following history of Israel is testament to that, but that only seems all the more reason for me to point out when such a thing is clearly happening again. This next part of my response will come across as snarky, but I'm sure you and other readers will have a thick enough skin to be able to look past that and see the reasonable point behind what I'm suggesting: YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of gays an lesbians? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of transgendered teens? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of paedophiles? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. Obviously there is the issue of consent which I appear to be avoiding, but the reality is that once you decide that sexuality is innate and purely genetic, you can apply the same arguments for one group and the other, and the only thing stopping those things from going ahead is a decision that says that people below an arbitrarily decided age group are legally unable to consent to these things. That's a whole discussion in and of itself though, so I'll try to leave that be. YandereTheEmo said: Progressivism is less abolitionist and more evaluative--or at least, it is supposed to be, however like most things hi-jacked by the feminist, social justice hate-mob, it has become a deluded movement of pseudo-actualization. One problem with movements which identify as 'progressive' is that for them stopping feels like giving up rather than succeeding. The 'gay pride' or 'gay rights' movements are going to be a fantastic example to witness over the coming years. What on earth are they going to fight for now? You'd better believe that they're going to look for something. It'll be a repeat of how in many of your eyes 'feminism' had jumped the shark when it moved on from achieving equal rights for women and moved onto constructing false gods, threat narratives, and an entire grievance industry that runs on university campuses and off of crocodile tears. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: If my conclusions from reading those verses were nothing more than equivocation, why would the time be taken to use and define a term like 'froward'? I don't think all of your conclusions were equivocation, but there is a great deal of interpretation in such ambiguity that is not entirely ubiquitous, thus expounding on something that still has yet to be concretely decided seems to be "jumping the gun." Once we pre-establish something to be reasonably true in some regard, we then begin to discuss what principle conclusions can be drawn from such truth. That's why I find arguments regarding religious or atheistic principles somewhat inane--but necessary--because the very root of such discussions is geared towards equivocation of defining human existence, and thus much of the debate boils down to principle disagreements that are nigh-unchanging. This next part of my response will come across as snarky, but I'm sure you and other readers will have a thick enough skin to be able to look past that and see the reasonable point behind what I'm suggesting: I'm going to try and not sound convenient or contradictory in how I respond to this. YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of transgendered teens? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. This one I tend to agree with. I don't necessarily think we needed to classify transgenderedness as its own form of pseudo-citizenship, mostly because identity politics are ludicrous, but I definitely think such rights to exist and live out one's choices are inherent to one's experience. I follow the argument of harm and relative morality, i.e. what harm is being done, and who's morals are being quashed? If both arguments turn up none-the-wiser, I tend to agree with at least some of principle, but it can be more complex than that. YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of paedophiles? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. This does not meet such standards, unfortunately, as paedophilia objectively causes harm to children, not in principle, but in action. Now, the principle attraction itself is not "wrong," but rather considered as "perverse" because of how it affects others when actualized. However, there is a strict argument regarding the policing of difficult moral-ventures that leads to some objective revelation regarding the necessity of damning such principle attraction, and as you said, this is an entirely different discussion. As for the part I didn't quote, while the specific age itself is arbitrary, it's grounded in principles of maturational growth, which serve as indicators for who has the capacity to reasonably consent. One problem with movements which identify as 'progressive' is that for them stopping feels like giving up rather than succeeding. Presupposing that they've met the initial burden of their goal, correct. In essence, they are perpetuating their own problems, if not creating them. It's not unlike objectification, in which sexual liberation is damned and condemned by the very people saying it is inherently "objectifying" none-the-wiser that making such claims is the only point at which said person's acceptance of their sexual capabilities becomes reduced to that of an object, and thus the cycle begins. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| What pisses me off about feminism is it has a false view of you're either a feminist or a sexist. Which is bullshit. There is more than one way to go for equal and feminism is not the best one (at least in the western world). |
| "Presupposing that they've met the initial burden of their goal, correct. In essence, they are perpetuating their own problems, if not creating them" Some truth right thurrrrr The probelm with identity politics is that you can't go on with it forever. At first, you need to stand up and say that being a woman doesn't mean you deserve unequal pay and be blamed for rape. Eventually, though, you'll have to shed your identity and collectivisim. If your objective is not to form a matriarchy but to assimilate into a more just society - one where men, women, eggplants and crabs are equal then you need to stop drawing lines in the sand. It's like people who keep acting like gays are special snowflakes. Positive specialness is very close to negative specialness. Once we stop seeing women or gays or tables as something unique, they'll become equal to us. This is what people criticze about Post-Racial Worldview but equality has a price: It means you have to build your own identity. You can't rely on a collective to give you one. Today I looked for a sign With flames in my hands A line in the sand Between yours and mine |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| I'm a humanist |
Killaclown said: I'm a humanist You're a cutie. |
YandereTheEmo said: YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of transgendered teens? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. This one I tend to agree with. I don't necessarily think we needed to classify transgenderedness as its own form of pseudo-citizenship, mostly because identity politics are ludicrous, but I definitely think such rights to exist and live out one's choices are inherent to one's experience. I follow the argument of harm and relative morality, i.e. what harm is being done, and who's morals are being quashed? If both arguments turn up none-the-wiser, I tend to agree with at least some of principle, but it can be more complex than that. Giving people the right to make a choice that will drive 2 in 5 of them to commit suicide later on sounds like the causation of harm to me. It certainly is complex. Mental illnesses usually are. YandereTheEmo said: YandereTheEmo said: Why do people think it is inherently progressive to push for the rights of paedophiles? Well, they looked at the principles of infallible, inalienable rights as they adhere to our constitution in the U.S., and realized an inherent contradiction in not equating a group of individuals based on what is, at the very, very least ostensibly, an innate characteristic of how they were born, thus treating them like second-class citizens. This does not meet such standards, unfortunately, as paedophilia objectively causes harm to children, not in principle, but in action. Now, the principle attraction itself is not "wrong," but rather considered as "perverse" because of how it affects others when actualized. Homosexuality does not meet such standards either. It causes harm in action. It affects others when actualized. Rampant spreading of new sexually transmitted diseases through the population has occurred in tangent with the accepting of the invariably promiscuous lifestyle of sodomites. When I did some research I found out that the original name of AIDS was GRIDS, or Gay Related Immune(Immuno?) Deficiency Syndrome. People that actively practice homosexuality are on average causing more long term harm to themselves and others than people who smoke cigarettes. To get back to the point, there is no evidence that this change in allowing extra rights for people that practice an (historically) abnormal sexual lifestyle is actually 'progressive' in any true sense of the word. Similarly, there is no way of showing that the allowing of other rights (which we both disapprove of) to not be 'progressive' by that same metric. The principle of harm reduction alone doesn't work for two reasons. One: There are some freedoms which people all desire today that contain inherent to them the risk of harm, both to self and to others (being able to drive, for example). Two: If people have an incentive to grant new freedoms to the public, they'll often happily ignore (or explain away: dismiss out of hand) evidence that such new freedoms do cause harm if and when they feel like it. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| anti-feminist |
 |
icirate said: Congratulations. You take the retard cake. I'm actually going to save this quote for a good long while.Homosexuality does not meet such standards either. It causes harm in action. It affects others when actualized. Rampant spreading of new sexually transmitted diseases through the population has occurred in tangent with the accepting of the invariably promiscuous lifestyle of sodomites. When I did some research I found out that the original name of AIDS was GRIDS, or Gay Related Immune(Immuno?) Deficiency Syndrome. People that actively practice homosexuality are on average causing more long term harm to themselves and others than people who smoke cigarettes. Oh, and no, I won't go into detail with you why this statement is retarded, if your understanding of STD's is as competent as people in the 1970's I'm going to assume that you think scientific advancement is hokum in the eyes of the all-seeing and all-knowing god. |
Pirating_NinjaJul 25, 2015 11:18 PM
 |
Pirating_Ninja said: icirate said: Congratulations. You take the retard cake. I'm actually going to save this quote for a good long while.Homosexuality does not meet such standards either. It causes harm in action. It affects others when actualized. Rampant spreading of new sexually transmitted diseases through the population has occurred in tangent with the accepting of the invariably promiscuous lifestyle of sodomites. When I did some research I found out that the original name of AIDS was GRIDS, or Gay Related Immune(Immuno?) Deficiency Syndrome. People that actively practice homosexuality are on average causing more long term harm to themselves and others than people who smoke cigarettes. Oh, and no, I won't go into detail with you why this statement is retarded awh :c That's no fun. Pirating_Ninja said: if your understanding of STD's is as competent as people in the 1970's I'm going to- I was sourcing from a study published in 1997. What I claimed before may or may not still be true, and I've only mentioned one of many different diseases. That is a point though - thanks to the billions and billions of dollars spent over the last many decades developing medication that allows people with AIDS to live with the disease for longer, people that practice homosexual lifestyles are now able to potentially live for nearly as long as normal people! Way to go, medical research teams! Imagine all the extra money that could have been devoted to cancer research instead . . . |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| I don't really know if i can say myself as feminist. Because i often heard bad thing with feminist like they think all men is pig, or sexist in internet / western media. BUt i haven't meet with them myself in reality so i don't really sure. But one thing for sure is equality is must from all gender. I do support this believe. All human created equal and human right for all of the gender is right thing to do. In my country feminism rarely been heard at media compare to western media. But we had many national hero at my country whose is woman. And we had our own national celebration day for our woman national hero. And most teacher in our country is woman, which is a good thing so our younger generation can more respect all gender and equality for all gender :) |
 |
| This last page has taught me that AIDs comes from homosexuals, and not from people who don't use protection. |
cause said: This last page has taught me that AIDs comes from homosexuals, and not from people who don't use protection. Don't fret,you learn new tings everyday. |
 |
AniComp said: Ironically this right here is true in Western Society, however this would be a good example of something that feminism doesn't approve of. And most teacher in our country is woman, which is a good thing so our younger generation can more respect all gender and equality for all gender :) Granted, they won't outright say this is a bad thing, or even understand why I would say this (for the most part), however think about it this way, do teachers make a lot? No. So what would happen to the wage gap if the vast majority of teachers are female? I honestly doubt it affects the gap by too much, however this is one example of "job choice" that leads to the gap . . . And feminists strictly oppose the wage gap, granted that is because probably upwards of 95% believe the "Women get paid .77 of what men make for the same work" statement. Although I find this extremely ironic too since the .77 statistics they use comes from a government study in which the government found the average salary of men and women, and simply divided the avg. salary of women by that of men, getting .77. Nowhere in this study was "in the same job" implied, nor even for "the same amount of work" for that matter since the study did not account for hourly jobs (i.e. if someone worked 20 hours and another worked 40 hours, which probably occurred in this study a bajillion times, feminists claim that all those looked at within the study "did the same amount of work") Sorry for the long rant, I just found the statement ironic since yes, you would assume that if the education system is predominantly feminine, it would be weird to think that our society is somehow secretly indoctrinating our children into some type of patriarchal society. |
|
AniComp said: And most teacher in our country is woman, which is a good thing Why. Are you saying having more female teachers than males is a good thing and if it were the other way around, would not be a good thing. Thats sexist. |
 |
| as a girl I am |
| Sasuke or Kaneki I can't decide |
I'm a  |
 |
| nope. i am a man. and a lesbian. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| I'd slit my own throat before calling myself a feminist. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
cause said: This last page has taught me that AIDs comes from homosexuals, and not from people who don't use protection. I always found this argument hilarious. Let's assume gays have a higher rate of spreading STD's. Then it's their own hell to pay. People do all kinds of more dangerous stuff and we're find with that. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
cause said: AIDS is higher in homosexual population because:This last page has taught me that AIDs comes from homosexuals, and not from people who don't use protection. 1. Low self esteem due to bigots like icarate telling them they have a mental illness that can never be treated. Some of them have just resigned to the idea that they will be ostracized and worthless, and will die young anyways. 2. Anal sex is inherently more risky because the ass doesn't naturally lube up, and so is easier to have microtears in the lining, facilitating transmission. 3. Because homosexuality isn't as prominent (as, say, heterosexuality), gays find themselves forming tight communities, which is a vector for diseases (especially if many of them have low self esteem and don't use protection). 4. Low self esteem also increases drug use. Note that #1, #3, and #4 aren't specific to gays, but also other stratified minorities. #2 is somewhat specific to gays, but not caused by homosexuality per se. Straight couples could also have anal sex with a similar risk. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Only for my waifu. |
Asuka is life. Asuka is love, i say |
TheBrainintheJar said: cause said: This last page has taught me that AIDs comes from homosexuals, and not from people who don't use protection. I always found this argument hilarious. Let's assume gays have a higher rate of spreading STD's. Then it's their own hell to pay. People do all kinds of more dangerous stuff and we're find with that. There have been films in the past 3-5 years that in some form or another covered the period when such a spread of STDs became evident--which was, in essence, reactionary to the bigotry being faced by the gay populace at that time. They had to, as katsu stated, form smaller communities of supportive, gay individuals as a form of survival (hyperbolic, but technically true), thus causing the disease to fester within the groups where it was evident. However, it's not some gay-centric disease, and is merely more likely to be caused by anal sex. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
Pirating_Ninja said: Sorry for the long rant, I just found the statement ironic since yes, you would assume that if the education system is predominantly feminine, it would be weird to think that our society is somehow secretly indoctrinating our children into some type of patriarchal society. It's okay, thank you for your info . The question is were the feminist already put more effort to get more higher salary ?. The job is their choice. If you want more higher salary you should choose another occupation. But if their feel a discrimination in their occupation then they have right to protest and made a struggle for their right, that's why feminist exist right? but their put their effort in another thing like you mention it before without doing any effort for their actual reason. Well i don't really know about the problem myself because i don't fully function in society yet. But i think that the conclusion i had after i read / heard in the internet / western media. And_Ryan said: Why. Are you saying having more female teachers than males is a good thing and if it were the other way around, would not be a good thing. Thats sexist. I don't say having more man as a teacher is bad thing either. But, if you put it like that then all of my opinon if only side with one of the gender is sexist. But i post my opinion because the thread said about feminist right? the feminist really exist because they feel a discrimination/ oppression with their human right. So if you had many female teacher it made the younger generation feel more respected with the woman and made the equality become more easy to achieve. |
|
katsucats said: Only in men. Lesbians its lower than everyone. homosexual population because: AniComp said: Or it would make them hate women more. It really depends who they have been exposed to over their lives just like anyone else. Just being a teacher does not buy respect. Respect is up to the individualI don't say having more man as a teacher is bad thing either. But, if you put it like that then all of my opinon if only side with one of the gender is sexist. But i post my opinion because the thread said about feminist right? the feminist really exist because they feel a discrimination/ oppression with their human right. So if you had many female teacher it made the younger generation feel more respected with the woman and made the equality become more easy to achieve. |
| I do think all genders should have the same right but most feminists want to have the same rights that men have but then also want to have the rights that ONLY women can have all of this without taking on the duties that ONLY men have and so i dont really agree with feminism. |
AniComp said: I don't say having more man as a teacher is bad thing either. But, if you put it like that then all of my opinon if only side with one of the gender is sexist.  Now you're catching on to the irony of purposed equality. |
|
katsucats said: AIDS is higher in homosexual population because: 1. Low self esteem due to bigots like icarate telling them they have a mental illness that can never be treated. Some of them have just resigned to the idea that they will be ostracized and worthless, and will die young anyways. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It's a mantra. Repeat it. Congratulations, you're cured! Not of AIDS, just of that disorder where your self esteem mysteriously evaporates the moment anyone questions your life choices. 2 and 3 are obviously true. 4, see above. #5. Homosexuals have a partner count roughly 50x higher than heterosexual couples on average. katsucats said: Straight couples could also have anal sex with a similar risk. Only if they're being at least a quarter as promiscuous as homosexuals clearly are. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
More topics from this board
» How would telepathy affect society?NonaryGames - Aug 23, 2015 |
29 |
by Zarutaku
»»
1 second ago |
|
» How old were you when your birthday stopped being special to you?Jomfrey - 4 hours ago |
12 |
by Mayahuel
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» The Curse of OvertourismMeusnier - May 21 |
27 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
40 minutes ago |
|
» I think we live in a super-deterministic universe.purple_rayn - Jun 10 |
42 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
44 minutes ago |
|
» have you been sick this winter? ( 1 2 )Star_Boy - Jan 17, 2013 |
95 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
49 minutes ago |