With all of these special snowflakes with multicolored hair pretending to be part of the community to not have "privledge", when are we going to fight back? They're already starting to infiltrate the hierarchy of SJW groups and actually attacking real gay people:
>acting like black women
Is this a thing that gay men do and I'm just oblivious to it? Is it possible to even do this?
Do black women "act" a certain way, aside from fucking crazy?
>Women doing insane shit
What a goddamn surprise. Their only value is that smelly clam between their legs that allows us to reproduce. Beyond that, they should be treated like cattle and nothing more.
>Feminists are anti-everyone else.
Not really. While you could probably pick anything and find a feminist who's opposed to it, that's just because there's a lot of different views in the feminist community, the same is true really of any diverse group. There is no one feminist who's opposed to everything. And there are reasonable feminists, but even they won't have a positive view of anyone who says women should be treated like cattle. If you don't like feminists calling out gays for being misogynistic, why don't you make an effort to prove them WRONG rather than prove them RIGHT?
>Once you think about it, their statement is incredibly racist.
Very much so.
In any other instance, describing black women with a strict set of stereotypical traits and mannerisms would be labeled as immensely racist, ignorant, and bigoted, etc.
But when it is for the purpose of putting down white men then negative stereotypes of black women are encouraged, protected, and upheld.
They don't care at all about black women, just about PC points and sympathy.
So let me get this straight.
You claim all gay men are misogynistic because of a single post made by someone of unknown gender and unknown sexual orientation, but because it was against feminists, it must've been a gay white male. right?
Sounds like someone has an axe to grind and no point to make.
>All gay men are misogynistic!
But I did NOT say that. I called a particular person out on being misogynistic, and made an implication that such attitudes seem common in the gay community. I did not say "all gay men are misogynistic".
>inb4 "That's not what I said!!!"
>it absolutely is.
So you're just going to admit you're using strawman arguments and not even try to discuss things logically? Ok then.
>was against feminists
The original statement was not against feminists. The original statement was that women should be treated as cattle.
>it must've been a gay white male. right?
Where did I imply that they were white? Stop projecting so hard.
Give me a list of 5 contributions that feminism has contributed to society that doesn't exclusively benefit women.
Go on, I'm waiting. The answer is that you can't, you insufferable cunt. Feminist don't want equality, they want submission. But keep up the fight for le equality :^)
That hardly fucking matters.
Feminists did not get the women's vote in the US. Land owners got it for them.
And the sexual revolution was a strictly LGBT movement in the 60s and 70s that was bogartted by feminists who rode on the coattails for struggling LGBT activists and made the movement all about upper middle class women getting their asses pinched in the office now and then.
>Feminists did not get the women's vote in the US.
Only in the sense that feminists at the time were a group largely without formal political power. Which is kind of circular reasoning.
Not really, consdering that men were in a far worse situation than women when it came to voting at the time.
Only land owners had the right to vote, regardless of their gender.
Men could obtain that right, but only by serving in the military and fighting in wars.
Women and feminists merely stomped their feet and pouted their way to this right which was given to them.
The history of the sexual revolution starts with gays and lesbians demanding equal treatment and the rights to be who they are.
It gets completely taken over by whining housewives and female secretaries who wan more money.
There was no first wave feminism. Second wavers just retroactively claimed victories and attributed them to "early feminists"
It is like saying, "Teddy Roosevelt did a lot for the environment, therefor he was in the first wave of green peace."
>femishits try to post on /lgbt/
>get fucking told
The problem is that the majority of loud angry feminists don't actually know anything about feminist history. Rather they are told about rape and patriarchy and go on a crybully crusade to kill the boogey man they learned about in women's studies.
Feminist history is shoddy at best. It's not something to be proud of.
Susan B. anthony was a noted racist who worked tirelessly to exclude black women from getting the right to vote.
feminists in the UK, called the white rose movement, pressured young men into fighting in wars because it was a "man's duty". But when it came to getting their right to vote? Just like american suffragets, they bitched and moaned and did no work.
Many feminist women attacked lesbians and gays for their own benefit during the sexual revolution so that the movement could be about them instead.
Feminists wrote entire hate manifestos about gay men in the 70s to try and discredit their attempts to get equal rights.
And now feminists tirelessly attack the GBT, and appropriate the L for malicious political means.
There is no proud history of feminism anywhere.
>Not really, consdering that men were in a far worse situation than women when it came to voting at the time.
It was at least possible for men to vote. Women didn't even have that option except. The fact that men had to fight in war was really a seperate issue - unless there was some kind of special rule that non-land-owning men could vote only after military service. And even if there was such a rule, men at least had the option, while women were stuck without the right to vote. Even if a woman WAS willing to risk her life for the right to vote, she wouldn't have that option.
Only because some autist insisted on tipping his fedora into the next dimension and saying women should be treated like cattle.
>It is like saying, "Teddy Roosevelt did a lot for the environment, therefor he was in the first wave of green peace."
Greenpeace is a specific organization, feminism is not. Would you consider it incorrect to say that he was the first wave of environmentalism?
Nah, a lot of feminist ideology is based on the elimination of gender roles. Of course, then there are those who get into this whole silly idea of "gender appropriation", not to mention the gendercrits who think gender non-conformity in males is some roundabout way of forcing gender roles on women.
We are not rascist, since it´s a crime, and crime is for nig... oh.
Okay now, screw those feminist, I just want to study in a normal manner whitout that /leftpol shit.
What the Hell is going on here? I read the article, I see the random people jumping for each others throats at the slightest sign of insult, the knee jerk reactions, the conspicuous insecurities laid bare for all of 4chan to laugh at, but what I fail to see is why this shit matters.
Men, women, women-men and men-women, gender weirdos, and otherkin,
emancipate yourselves from this vile muck so hotly debated. Be yourSelves whatever the cost. Use jazz hands if you want; they are both jazzy and fun. Or don't, whatever, fuck it. Either way when somebody tells you not to do something just because they're offended, consider it of course, but if not doing it means you sacrifice your Self then say 'fuck that!' and do whatever the Hell you want.
you don't understand
this isn't any genuine place of hurt, it's horrible people taking full advantage of political correctness to attack people they don't like (white people, that is) while being immune to criticism
I think feminism was never as hated as it is today, gotta ask yourself why. since feminists are usually egocentric as fuck, they won't realize it's a problem in the movement (i.e. using very vocal crazy womyn), that ends in hate from literally every group.
>men hate feminists
>GBT hates feminism
>probably even lesbians hate feminism
>black people hate feminism
>spics hate them
>asians hate feminism
>plenty, actually a shit-ton, of straight women hate feminism
I really don't know any group in society, that doesn't have a respectable amount of people, who hate modern feminism.
no, it's not because we feel threatened, it's because you talk shit and put shame to a theoretically valid movement.
And? Tell me something I didn't know.
Same shit, different day is all I'm saying. I get it, I absolutely get it, and I also know how to get past it......BY GETTING FUCKING PAST IT. That's it. Let it go. be yourself, stand up for what you believe in, and don't let the haters get you down.
There's always going to be some asshole who thinks they know better than you do and who will try you make you live in a way that they see fit. Fuck'em for trying.
The real trick is to not let any of this shit ever get under your skin even slightly. When it, whatever it is we're talking about now, begins to become an oppressive beat-down that impinges on your personal rights and freedoms then shake back.
You say I don't understand, but I'm trying to show you I do. On 4chan our actions are our words.
How am I not fucking surprised?
Gurl ya think ya can stop me? Nuh-uh gurl, I'm telling ya just what I told to my ex boyfriend's sister Amy. You ain't got no chill and I aint got no time for yer hurt feelings, y'know what I'm sayin'? Dont make me go there gurl because jesus knows i will go there if you make me.
"Acting black" I can at least understand but crossdressing? Leave it to the fucking British to ban something that in no way shape or form affects or harms other people. Why do they care what gay men do behind closed doors?
Fucking British people I swear.
>having an inner black woman is racist
>lets ban crossdressing because it hurts men who feel like women on the inside
That makes no fucking sense. They are basically saying dresses are for women, which goes pretty much against anything feminism stands for.
Also why don't they ban women from dressing with men's clothes? Or having short hair? Following their logic, that should hurt ftms.
Maybe the British should worry about banning child prostitute rings and not cute guys wearing cute clothes.
The fact that it was college students who made it a rule that gay men can't crossdress on campuses is alarming. This means when they're old and in power they'll make it a law and start throwing people in jail over it.
Good job Britain. You have child prostitute rings but you think gay guys wearing articles of women's clothing is more important of an issue to deal with.
Somehow despite it being CURRENT YEAR British people still care about what other people wear and think it affects them.
Actually women who owned land had the right to vote.
There was no discrimination outside unless you didn't own land.
The fact that you would even compare conscription to suffrage is gross logical gymnastics absolutely brimming with female egotism.
You won your right to vote through the sacrifice of men who never got theirs. Never forget it.
>Actually women who owned land had the right to vote.
>There was no discrimination outside unless you didn't own land.
So could non land-owning males vote, or was it that only land owners could vote regardless of gender? I'd like to seea source on that.
>The fact that you would even compare conscription to suffrage is gross logical gymnastics absolutely brimming with female egotism.
I'm not the one comparing them. The person I was responding to was the one who tried to connect it to voting rights.
>You won your right to vote through the sacrifice of men who never got theirs. Never forget it.
There is no logical connection between men dying in war and women getting the right to vote. Men were not dying to defeat an enemy who wanted to prevent women from voting. No matter what men did in war, wouldn't have really changed whether women got the right to vote, unless America was actually defeated or something. Otherwise, there's really no connection there.
No, you really are. For the better part of the past century men have been dying to prevent the horrors of oligarchical collectivism from stripping the rights of not only every human's right to vote, but right to view themselves as an individual. 100 million people have died over the past century due to the horrors of socialism, terror you don't have to endure because of men.
I realize now this must've been bait because nobody is so fucking retarded that they overlooked the sacrifice of so many to prevent the necrotic influences of social collectivist governments from halting the destiny of mankind.
I for one would like to see a revivification of the homosexual stock. Gays could conquer the world if they only united their considerable resources and acumen to create a new world. Instead we bicker and act like women, when what we need is to wear combat boots and take shit from no one.
Landowners regardless of gender could vote in the US.
The fact that you need sources on primary school history is quite pitiful.
Is this how little american women know about their own history, even the "feminist" history they pride so dearly?
The "100 million deaths due to socialism" I believe refers to those who died in the Soviet Union due to forced relocation, famine, and genocide. Nothing to do with American war deaths. And Soviet socialism never threatened American citizens in any meaningful way anyway. In any case, I don't see what this has to do with women getting the right to vote. That happened years before socialism stated killing people in large numbers, and was not directly due to any men dying in war. Yes, men giving their lives in war did help ensure our country's survival, but that really has no immediate direct connection to women getting the right to vote. That's like saying soldiers that gave their lives in WWI were responsible for the moon landing. Now, if men were sentenced to death for demanding universal suffrage, then I'd say there was a direct connection. Otherwise, it's a real stretch.
yes but also american schools teach revisionist history about womens suffrage.
Most students in america will tell you that all men had the right to vote, none of them know what conscription is, that all women lacked the right and it was the mean old white men keeping the poor helpless freedom fighter suffragets down.
>I'm sorry. are you trying to purport that feminism is hiveminded?
No, but that's what many assume.
>It would be betting if it was, but it's really oligarchical.
That would imply that it has clearly defined leadership.
>Landowners regardless of gender could vote in the US.
I'd still like a source on this. And an answer to the question of which NON-land owners could vote, if any.
Soviet socialism had as much a threat on America as American capitalism had on the Soviet union.
And I was including Nazi Germany, and Mao Zedong's China.
That you're so deluded into believing that there was never a threat to your liberty is proof of dedication and sacrifice of those infinitely your greater.
Throughout the entirety of the Cold War...
You know, the period when the Soviet union attempted to undermine social and economic cohesion whilst fostering hostile regimes antagonistic to American interests, all to the backdrop of potential nuclear annihilation?
Or maybe you're forgetting the Empire of Japan stripping away American pacific territory, and, you know, attacking the American fleet anchored at pearl harbour.
>You know, the period when the Soviet union attempted to undermine social and economic cohesion whilst fostering hostile regimes antagonistic to American interests, all to the backdrop of potential nuclear annihilation?
More a threat to the third world and possibly Europe. The only reason Americans suffered direct harm from the Cold War was because the US government enslaved them to fight unnecessary wars in Asia in a purported effort to stop the spread of Communism. The only immediate threat to Americans' well-being was nuclear war, which would hurt the USSR more than the US, so even if it did happen it wouldn't really be a consequence of socialism so much as having weapons of incredible power lying around waiting to be used.
>Or maybe you're forgetting the Empire of Japan stripping away American pacific territory, and, you know, attacking the American fleet anchored at pearl harbour.
Japan wasn't socialist though. You keep changing the topic and refusing to answer the actual relevant questions. But yes, the war against Japan was one of the few times after the 19th century that America was faced with a remotely credible threat of invasion by a foreign power.
If you honestly believe that the spread of communism had no relevancy to mainland America then you're poorly deluded.
There's really no way I can argue with someone who says that 2+2 is 5
>Japan wasn't socialist though.
Your japanese history is as bad as your american history it seems.
Japan had a long-standing history of national socialistic government until then end of WWII with the american occupation until 1952.
Okay, explain how the spread of Communism actually threatened harm to American citizens. Unless some of our neighbors turned Communist and actually tried to invade us, it wouldn't really threatened our citizens. Now, Communist forces were a military threat to central Europe, but as far as I know they were never in a position to make an attack on American soil. Unless you're talking about nuclear weapons, which against the Communists would never have used intentionally as the retaliation strike would have devastated them. The only case in which nuclear weapons would be used is if some nutjob decided to press the button, or if there was a miscommunication. The Soviet Union was not interested in a victory that would result in their own destruction, and they never really were in a position to safely make a nuclear attack on the US. The only time that really comes close was the Cuban Missile Crisis - and that was actually in response to American nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey, equally close to the Soviet border as Cuba was to our own.
Yes, if you insist on calling any nationalistic totalitarian or authoritarian government "socialism". But by that reasoning most countries during the 1930s would be classified as socialist. The term loses all meaning in that case. Just because a country is fighting total war doesn't mean it's socialist.
I've already given up on you
You've never bothered to research the billions lost in economic subversion committed by the soviets against the states, or the infiltration of minority groups by soviet agents in order to sew dissidency and erode social cohesion.
You don't appreciate America's burden as the sole defender of liberty during a time in which the future of humanity nearly froze, and you think that just because America now knows no equal that is always must have been so.
I'm not American, and your horrible ignorance of the blood and treasure lost by American men is frankly insulting.
>Japan had a socialist economy supported by their own government.
Source please. Again, a war economy doesn't mean a country is socialist. Unless you'd say America and all of its allies were socialist during WWII as well.
And if you're that same anon, can you please give a source on your claims about voting rights? This is my third time asking.
>You don't appreciate America's burden as the sole defender of liberty during a time in which the future of humanity nearly froze, and you think that just because America now knows no equal that is always must have been so.
The USSR was the USA's "equal", but the nature of nuclear war meant that the politics of the countries involved was irrelevant. All that mattered was that nuclear weapons were lying around, pointed at each other, just waiting for someone to push the button. The USA and USSR both contributed to the potential of a nuclear exchange, and as that was the only real threat to the American people, both were more or less equally responsible for putting the American people at risk. And it's silly to call the US the "defender of liberty" when during the early Cold War American politicians were able to silence the opposition by making baseless accusations of them being Communist sympathizers. If you live in a society where someone can just point at you, say "he's a bad guy" and have you taken away, that is not liberty.