"Why can't we hate men?"

[theprestige]

Maybe this will help illustrate the problem...

So Jews, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for national socialist gentiles only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecauseInternationalJewry. It is long past time to play hard for Team National Socialism. And win.​

 

[theprestige]

or as another example Milo Whatever (oops, there was footage of him advocating sex with underaged people, on Joe Rogan's very popular show.)

Advocating love of teenagers is very different from advocating hatred of men. And even so, you didn't actually cite this as an example. You're just asking us to credit this reference back to your actual (worthless) citation. If you think Bretibart's coverage of Spencer proves your point, then cite the coverage. Don't just allude to it after the fact, as if the mere insinuation somehow rehabilitates your claim.

 

[Craig B]

Maybe this will help illustrate the problem...

So Jews, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for national socialist gentiles only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecauseInternationalJewry. It is long past time to play hard for Team National Socialism. And win.​

That's quite striking, but it is enfeebled by this undeniable fact:
The patriarchal oppression radifems are reacting to is real, but
The alleged oppression of Gentiles by Jews cited by the Nazis is a fantasy.

Women have been historically deprived of the franchise and property rights. That is a fact.
The Blood Libel and the Elders of Zion world conspiracy are nonsensical fiction, on the other hand.

 

[Ziggurat]

The patriarchal oppression radifems are reacting to is real

No, it isn't. It's a cartoon caricature of history.

Women have been historically deprived of the franchise and property rights. That is a fact.

So have most men, historically speaking. Hell, for most of human history, nobody got a vote, and property rights weren't even a concept if you weren't a noble. Men AND women were oppressed, as a routine condition.

 

[theprestige]

That's quite striking, but it is enfeebled by this undeniable fact:
The patriarchal oppression radifems are reacting to is real, but
The alleged oppression of Gentiles by Jews cited by the Nazis is a fantasy.

What's chilling to me is this:

We saw what happened to the Jews, when the radical anti-semites took power.

What will happen to the men, if the radical feminists take power? Especially if they believe that they have a legitimate grievance?

 

[Thermal]

Well this is getting dystopian

 

[theprestige]

Well this is getting dystopian

Ah, but is that a bug, or a feature of "it's okay to hate People Group X"?

 

[d4m10n]

What will happen to the men, if the radical feminists take power? Especially if they believe that they have a legitimate grievance?

Sex selective abortion should take care of them in a generation or two.

 

[Sabrina]

What's chilling to me is this:

We saw what happened to the Jews, when the radical anti-semites took power.

What will happen to the men, if the radical feminists take power? Especially if they believe that they have a legitimate grievance?

You are aware, I trust, that so-called "radical feminists" are a(n extremely vocal) minority to overall feminism?

I personally idenfity as feminist. However, I do not and will never support nor advocate that women gain power OVER men. I will and have supported and advocated for women being treated EQUALLY to men; no more, no less. I believe the numbers of feminists like me vastly outweigh the toxic minority that would rather lynch men; we just aren't as vocal as they seem to be, if the OP is any indication. I have participated in two Women's Marches thus far, and in neither of them (for the first of over 1 million participants in my area alone, second somewhere between 500,000-750,000) were there any feminists calling for all men to step down in favor of women or advocating punishment of men for how women have been treated until now. Instead, there were calls for being treated equally, being paid equally, for teaching children from the get go that your gender doesn't matter and shouldn't matter in terms of how you act toward another person in a multitude of settings. That's it.

I don't agree with the premise of the article from the OP. I do not think men should "stand down" in favor of women. I DO think that women should be offered the same opportunities and respect in the same situations, but that's a matter of being treated EQUALLY, not advancing one gender over the other because the other has been in charge for all this time and someone thinks it's time for the first gender to have a turn. This isn't about taking turns, to my way of thinking; this is about being treated the same when I or another woman hold a position of authority to the way a man would be treated, to give a limited example. No more, no less.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, it isn't. It's a cartoon caricature of history.



So have most men, historically speaking. Hell, for most of human history, nobody got a vote, and property rights weren't even a concept if you weren't a noble. Men AND women were oppressed, as a routine condition.

Looking at the groups as a whole, women have lagged far behind men in securing basic human rights. It was only fairly recently women finally secured the right of bodily autonomy, which has been ceaselessly under attack since Roe vs Wade. On the other hand, only men are drafted, and almost all U.S. war deaths have been men. Of course, there's also the fact that men themselves created the policy that women shouldn't be drafted and shouldn't serve in combat, so the gender-disparity of war deaths is a self-inflicted wound on our part.

 

[Thermal]

Anyone else pining for the days when we could just hate People Groups without being judged?

 

[theprestige]

You are aware, I trust, that so-called "radical feminists" are a(n extremely vocal) minority to overall feminism?

Most of the worst tyrannies in human history have been perpetrated by an extremely vocal minority that happened to seize power.

Part of the humor of the article is that these particular radicals can't even seize power (yet). They've resorted to begging men to voluntarily cede power to them. And history suggests that men would be suicidally retarded to voluntarily cede power to these particular radicals.

I personally idenfity as feminist. However, I do not and will never support nor advocate that women gain power OVER men. I will and have supported and advocated for women being treated EQUALLY to men; no more, no less. I believe the numbers of feminists like me vastly outweigh the toxic minority that would rather lynch men; we just aren't as vocal as they seem to be, if the OP is any indication. I have participated in two Women's Marches thus far, and in neither of them (for the first of over 1 million participants in my area alone, second somewhere between 500,000-750,000) were there any feminists calling for all men to step down in favor of women or advocating punishment of men for how women have been treated until now. Instead, there were calls for being treated equally, being paid equally, for teaching children from the get go that your gender doesn't matter and shouldn't matter in terms of how you act toward another person in a multitude of settings. That's it.

I don't agree with the premise of the article from the OP. I do not think men should "stand down" in favor of women. I DO think that women should be offered the same opportunities and respect in the same situations, but that's a matter of being treated EQUALLY, not advancing one gender over the other because the other has been in charge for all this time and someone thinks it's time for the first gender to have a turn. This isn't about taking turns, to my way of thinking; this is about being treated the same when I or another woman hold a position of authority to the way a man would be treated, to give a limited example. No more, no less.

Thank you for your unequivocal repudiation of the premise of the OP article.

 

[Ziggurat]

Looking at the groups as a whole, women have lagged far behind men in securing basic human rights. It was only fairly recently women finally secured the right of bodily autonomy, which has been ceaselessly under attack since Roe vs Wade.

If you're citing abortion as a justification for claiming women are oppressed, then you're not taking the issue seriously, but just using it as a justification for partisan advance. Abortion is simply not a clear-cut case. It is not a settled question of how to regard a fetus, and if they are deserving of right, then allowing women to kill them, especially when they may be killed because they are female (as happens all over the world), is not an unambiguous win for women. Not even close.

On the other hand, only men are drafted, and almost all U.S. war deaths have been men. Of course, there's also the fact that men themselves created the policy that women shouldn't be drafted and shouldn't serve in combat, so the gender-disparity of war deaths is a self-inflicted wound on our part.

Which gives lie to the radical feminist claim that the patriarchy is just about oppression. It isn't. History is filled with examples of men protecting women, often at the cost of their lives. And not just individual examples, but on a society-wide basis. For example, the survival rate for third-class women passengers on the Titanic was significantly higher than the survival rate for first-class men passengers. That isn't because women are better at treading water. And that itself was but an echo of the famous sinking of the HMS Birkenhead about 70 years before that.

I don't say any of this as justification for things like denying women the vote. There were indeed historical injustices against women. But history just isn't what the radfems claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

What will happen to the men, if the radical feminists take power? Especially if they believe that they have a legitimate grievance?

Some radfems have advocated reducing the male population to a mere 10% of the total population. Supposedly this can happen through selective breeding (ie, choosing to have predominantly female childred) rather than actually killing men. But that's just the pipe dream.

As for what would actually happen, I suspect that like when communists take over, they would discover that their fellow feminists will purge and oppress them worse than men ever did as they ruthlessly claw for power.

 

[Fudbucker]

If you're citing abortion as a justification for claiming women are oppressed, then you're not taking the issue seriously, but just using it as a justification for partisan advance. Abortion is simply not a clear-cut case. It is not a settled question of how to regard a fetus, and if they are deserving of right, then allowing women to kill them, especially when they may be killed because they are female (as happens all over the world), is not an unambiguous win for women. Not even close.

Not only is it a settled question, it's also settled law. Roe Vs. Wade was an unambiguous "win" for women (I put "win" in quotes because you can't really "win" a right like bodily autonomy that should never have been taken away in the first place). No matter how much conservatives want to go back to the days of outlawing abortion, it's not going to happen. That doesn't stop them from trying like hell, though.

Which gives lie to the radical feminist claim that the patriarchy is just about oppression. It isn't. History is filled with examples of men protecting women, often at the cost of their lives. And not just individual examples, but on a society-wide basis. For example, the survival rate for third-class women passengers on the Titanic was significantly higher than the survival rate for first-class men passengers. That isn't because women are better at treading water. And that itself was but an echo of the famous sinking of the HMS Birkenhead about 70 years before that.

There are obviously benefits to being a woman (it's great when the ship you're on is about to go down). And guys hold the door open for you.

I don't know if men deliberately wanted to oppress women, but they certainly were very hesitant granting them basic rights, like voting. Here are some interesting quotes from MP's opposed to giving women the right to vote. Their reasons were all over the map: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43740033

I don't say any of this as justification for things like denying women the vote. There were indeed historical injustices against women. But history just isn't what the radfems claim.

There are ongoing injustices against women.

 

[Craig B]

No, it isn't. It's a cartoon caricature of history.



So have most men, historically speaking. Hell, for most of human history, nobody got a vote, and property rights weren't even a concept if you weren't a noble. Men AND women were oppressed, as a routine condition.

but where social rights were achieved (and you are well aware of this) they were not granted readily to women. Not the franchise, not equality of pay, not equality of property rights ... so your post is beside the point. You are the one one with the caricature of history.

 

[Craig B]

Some radfems have advocated reducing the male population to a mere 10% of the total population. Supposedly this can happen through selective breeding (ie, choosing to have predominantly female childred) rather than actually killing men. But that's just the pipe dream.

As for what would actually happen, I suspect that like when communists take over, they would discover that their fellow feminists will purge and oppress them worse than men ever did as they ruthlessly claw for power.

Why on earth can't you address the points I have made? The accusations made by Hitler against Jews were imaginary slanders. The accusations against patriarchy exploited by the radifems are on the whole justified, while their response is not.

Instead of addressing these you are imagining your favourite boogies ... women, commies ... taking over, and how they are going to kill off all men through "selective breeding", and "ruthless clawing" and other things that seem like fantasies.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why on earth can't you address the points I have made?

I did, in other posts. See my response to Fudbucker. But this specific post wasn't directed at you. It's in response to something that somebody else said. It makes no sense to complain that my answer to you wasn't contained in it.

The accusations made by Hitler against Jews were imaginary slanders. The accusations against patriarchy exploited by the radifems are on the whole justified,

Not really.

Instead of addressing these you are imagining your favourite boogies ... women, commies ...

Since when have I described women as boogies?

taking over, and how they are going to kill off all men through "selective breeding", and "ruthless clawing" and other things that seem like fantasies.

Of course selective breeding is a fantasy. I explicitly described it as a fantasy (what do you think "pipe dream" means?). But it's an actual fact, not a fantasy, that influential feminist radicals have actually held these views.

As for ruthlessly clawing for power, that's what radicals of all stripes do. What makes you think radical feminists are somehow immune to this? You're historically ignorant if you don't understand this rather basic fact.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not only is it a settled question, it's also settled law. Roe Vs. Wade was an unambiguous "win" for women (I put "win" in quotes because you can't really "win" a right like bodily autonomy that should never have been taken away in the first place). No matter how much conservatives want to go back to the days of outlawing abortion, it's not going to happen. That doesn't stop them from trying like hell, though.

They're trying like hell because it's NOT a settled moral question. Conservatives and liberals don't agree on it, and aren't getting any closer to agreeing either.

It's a settled legal question, for now, but it's perverse to try to draw morality from law.

There are obviously benefits to being a woman

And that's enough to prove the radical feminists are wrong.

I don't know if men deliberately wanted to oppress women

Which means you don't know that the radical feminists are right. So why are you defending them?

You don't have to think women were treated fairly to understand that the radical feminist are wrong. It's not either/or.

There are ongoing injustices against women.

Yes. But the radical feminist view extends far beyond this.

 

[Fudbucker]

They're trying like hell because it's NOT a settled moral question. Conservatives and liberals don't agree on it, and aren't getting any closer to agreeing either.

It's a settled legal question, for now, but it's perverse to try to draw morality from law.

The moral issue has been settled, in so far as we can settle anything in this society. There is absolutely no appetite in this country for outlawing abortion and very little appetite for overturning Roe. There are some peripheral questions about late-term abortions, but on the fundamental question of whether a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, it's settled.

And that's enough to prove the radical feminists are wrong.



Which means you don't know that the radical feminists are right. So why are you defending them?

You don't have to think women were treated fairly to understand that the radical feminist are wrong. It's not either/or.



Yes. But the radical feminist view extends far beyond this.

I actually don't read radical feminist articles. I may sound like one from time to time, but I don't know anything about the movement, really.