Judge Wears Feminist Symbol to Court, Raises Questions About

>waaah, a pink hat is oppressing me

>>107362
>waaah, a swastika patch is oppressing me

It's not the patch. It's not the hat. It's what they symbolize anon. Very simple concept.

>>107372
Oh my mistake. I now see that what this hat represents is so evil the judge might as well be wearing a swastika. Poor men. I hope they don't get gassed.

>>107375
Again, it wasn't a direct comparison. I went extreme to show the absurdity of ridiculing a position that didn't exist, of the apparel doing anything.

Swastika patches don't oppress anyone, the ideas and people who believe in them do. Likewise, an embarrassingly silly hat from a march centered around feminist proselytizing isn't doing anything, it's the person buying into those silly ideas wielding power that's the contention.

Generally I hate self-confirming rules like Lewis' law, but it does occasionally raise an eyebrow when so many people react with such visceral negativity when it's suggested men get the short end of the stick sometimes, especially from an institutional perspective.

>People are complaining that an openly feminist judge raises questions about whether or not a man-hater could be fair to men
The only people complaining are men's rights faggots and right wing SJWs.

>>107298
Feminism aside, a pink knit hat doesn't feel like proper courtroom attire to me.

>>107419
In America, as long as there aren't any already established rules or guidelines in place, it's often up to each individual judge as to what decorum rules his/her courtroom will follow.

Found this interesting reading:
http://www.post-gazette.com/life/fashion/2012/03/12/Dressing-for-legal-success-Fashion-strategy-for-the-courtroom-and-office/stories/201203120249
>Those making fashion statements from the bench, according to those surveyed, included President Judge Donna Jo McDaniel of Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, who sometimes comes to work in a fur coat and rarely obscures her suits, skirts and jackets with a judge's robe, as well as Judges David R. Cashman (monogrammed shirts), Jill E. Rangos (classic suits) and Anthony M. Mariani (old school). Edward J. Borkowski and Thomas E. Flaherty were also mentioned.

>>107298
>feminist = man-hater

FAKE NEWS

>>107433
It's not explicit, but the days of feminism simply representing a desire for equal rights are gone. You'd be hard pressed to find any feminist courses that didn't touch on things like patriarchy theory or rape culture for instance.

>>107396
Put the shoe on the other foot. If a male judge was exhibiting attire that made it obvious he was a men's right activist you know damn well people would be voicing displeasure.

Also, "right wing SJWs," don't exist. A key part of what a SJW is is the fervent quest to fulfill whatever is deemed pertinent to societal justice, usually in the name of fierce altruism, even if that altruism is merely a conduit for self-enriching narcissism. There are plenty of people who mimic outrage for the culture war on the right (for many people it started out there to begin with), but they're not exactly analogous to SJWs.

>>107396
Found the reddit fag

>>107298
Wow! Interesting stats.

However...

Ultimate fatalities from ignorance, arrogance, malnutrition and drug addiction: M-100%; F-100%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujBZKaDUmfs

>>107362
>missing the point this hard
the point is she's a judge, and is showing an obvious anti-male bias in court which would lead anybody to question her impartiality

>>107375
>Poor men. I hope they don't get gassed.
We're talking about a court room. Did you know that the courts already discriminate against men pretty substantially? It's not just family court either, criminal court treats female criminals way more leniently than male criminals and crimes with male victims are punished less severely than identical crimes with female victims. Given that the official platform for the Women's March wanted to increase the Pussy Pass, having a judge openly supporting this misandry is concerning.
As for "gassing" they use the electric chair now, and it's almost exclusively men who get the death penalty. Female murderers, no matter how heinous their crimes, never get death. In fact, one of the speakers at the Women's March brutally tortured and sodomized a man for several days before killing him. If a man did that to a woman he'd get death or at least life, but she only got like 20 years in prison and is now a feminist hero speaking about how hard it is for women in prison.

>>107396
No, it's anybody who doesn't want somebody that openly hates men in charge of a system that ALREADY discriminates against men

>>107433
how is that fake news? The majority of modern feminists are anti-male. This is even more true for the feminists so involved that they wear pink grrrrrl power hats in court

>>107459
> If a male judge was exhibiting attire that made it obvious he was a men's right activist you know damn well people would be voicing displeasure.
That's true and I wouldn't even put that in the same category, MRAs for the most part are egalitarians. For all the complaints in the media about MRAs hating women, I don't see it from them nearly as much as we see anti-male feminists

the women's march''s platform was intentionally ambiguous though.
it wasn't even strictly anti-trump.

>>107298
The last one has to be wrong. Women are only 40% of homeless people if they get to define homeless.

>>107631
It's become obvious to me that's the only way they can get large crowds to march for them. Say a bunch a platitudes, leave things ambiguous, and let the people marching make up whatever reason they want to justify their participation.

If they had a concrete goal and a solid message the turnout would have been so so much smaller, because the people running it were advocating for that batshit wing of feminism that pushes laws against mansplaining or wants to implement sharia law.

>>107645
>>107631
Technically they did have an official platform from the people who initially organized the event, it's just that the march grew so big that most people attending had no idea there was an official message for the march.
I don't remember where I saw it, but the platform was tumblr-SJW tier and was signed on by various feminist leaders

>>107644
IIRC the 40% is for general homelessness. When you only count unsheltered homeless, ie the ones you see sleeping on park benches, it's something like 90% male

Although even the 40% might be off, last I checked in the US it was 70/30 even for general homeless

Yet that big T all the rightwingers wear is aok. Trumps Amerika is a new low for shitholes.

>>107682
If a judge wore a red MAGA hat in court I'd be bitching about their impartiality and so would you.

>>107682
>>107684
>If a judge wore a red MAGA hat
>If
no need for hypotheticals when it already happened.
People were pissed, people did bitch, and the judge is no longer allowed to hear cases and might not be a judge anymore soon

And that's just showing support for a political candidate / POTUS. It's still an unacceptable political bias for a judge to have, but I'd say it's worse for them to openly support an anti-male movement like the OP

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-judge-who-wore-trump-hat-no-longer-allowed-to-hear-cases-1.3923935

>>107690
This just makes it all the more infuriating that there's a blatant double standard here.

>>107691
then point it out to the right people

>>107628
>The majority of modern feminists are anti-male
Um, no they're not?
Probably 90% of my social circle would call themselves feminist. I live in a very liberal city, it's the norm here. If someone was anti-male I'd consider their views extreme.

>>107713
They might not consider themselves anti-male, but feminism itself certainly is, as are the power brokers, the movers and shakers, and the revered thinkers. Ask your friends if they believe in things like toxic masculinity, rape culture, or even the existence of manspreading/mansplaining. I bet you'll get quite a few affirmatives.

>>107713
So you're telling me that my thousands of hours spent on Tumblr looking at blue haired teenagers and watching le epic SJW takedown videos on YouTube wasn't representative of the real world?

>>107772
Yes and also the opinions expressed on Twitter aren't as important or as representative as you were led to believe.

>>107772
>>107774
You guys take the same approach to /pol/ too right?

>>107713
Um, yes they are?
You're probably pretty anti-male yourself if you can't see that. The vast majority of feminists, especially the ones actually involved in the movement, constantly shut down attempts at even talking about men's issues. If you don't think that, for example, it's wrong to have a White House Council on Women and Girls but not have one for Men and Boys, then I'm assuming that you're also a man-hater anon, and your misandry prevents you from seeing the misandry of other feminists.

>>107772
>Tumblr
>Youtube
Then maybe we should look at the real world. Are Women's Studies departments the "real world"? What about feminist organizations like NOW and NOMAS? What about the Women's March, did that happen in the "real world"? What about President Obama himself, who called himself a feminist and ran an anti-male administration. Is President Obama part of the real world?

If you think misandry is limited to blue haired teenagers on tumblr then holy fuck you need to take a look around and see how shitty "real world" feminism is, and how little any of them care about men's rights. Most are even openly against anybody even talking about men's rights

>>107805
NOW has actually repeatedly shut down occasional attempts within various state legislatures to make joint-custody the default starting position for divorces. The country's largest and most politically active feminist organization actively tramples on and impedes egalitarian parental rights and people wonder why feminism ends up tarred as anti-male.

>>107298
>judge
>elected
how is that even fair

>>107753
>toxic masculinity, rape culture, or even the existence of manspreading/mansplaining.

None of these things are inherently anti-male. They are anti-fucktard, anti-asshole, but more specifically a push for cultural change in the same vein as getting people to stop spitting on the street or sagging their pants.

>>108107
I'm sorry, you're never going to convince me 'toxic masculinity,' was never anything but a pussyfooted way to condemn masculinity as a whole while maintaining an escape hatch for when an opponent catches whiff of the inherent bigotry that comes with the idea.

It's a classical motte and bailey theory. As are the ideas of rape culture and manspreading/mansplaining. They take natural male tendencies and frame them as a gendered pathology in need of a cure. The fact you compared these terms to cultural pushes for better manners makes that more than obvious.

This is going to sound mean, but I frankly don't trust your ability to identify anything as anti-male if 90% of your social circle is feminist, you live in a very liberal city, and you don't consider the trends listed above as anti-male.

>>108107
>manspreading/mansplaining are not anti-male
>shaming men for having testicles is not anti-male
>shaming men for having an opinion is not anti-male

The problem with rape culture is how they talk about it. EG, teach "men" not to rape because feminists think that only men can be rapists.
Toxic masculinity the problem is feminists' ignorance and refusal to acknowledge women's role in sexist gender roles. Did you see The Mask We Live In, with Michael Kimmel? It's a feminist documentary about toxic masculinity. The general message is that men, and only men, are responsible for "toxic masculinity." Men are so awful, not only do we make women's lives hell, but we're also the reason other men's lives suck! Not women though, women are perfect egalitarians and the world would be soooo much better if men were exactly like women
When feminists talk about "toxic masculinity" they'll never admit that women are the ones who pressure men to be dominant and to hide our insecurities, etc. Feminists will never admit that women, not men, are the reason traditional gender roles are still around in the first place. How many feminists do you know that ask men out on dates? I don't know any, they still expect men to stick to traditional gender roles, then somehow blame men for those traditional gender roles and even dismiss men's problems with "well that's just toxic masculinity, maybe if men didn't pressure other men to adhere to traditional gender roles their lives would be better. Men should start supporting equality just like all of us women do!

Fuck off, if you don't see anything wrong with any of these views it's because you're in too deep and you're essentially one of the anti-male feminists now. Along with that 90% of your social circle that are also feminists, they are anti-male but so are you so you can't recognize it

>>107362
> waaah, a plaque of the 10 Commandments is oppressing me!

its.ok.when.we.do.it.jpg

>>107628
>The majority of modern feminists are anti-male.


proofs?

PROOFSSSS!"!!!!!!


Wheer's the proofs my friend?

>>108107
>None of these things are inherently anti-male
reminder that defending legbeards on the internet won't get you laid, you chinless wonder

toxic femininity:

encourage third worlders into your country out of misguided empathy. they outbreed the native inhabitants and bring their genuine, actual rape culture with them

focus all your attention on non-existent rape culture on college campuses, but stay absolutely silent on the 40% of black girls who are sexually abused before they reach 18, or the 20,000 black-on-white rapes that occur every year (when exactly ZERO white-on-black rapes occur)

>>108178
Firdt of all, don't post in such a cringeworthy fashion. What are you, 12?


Feminist policies and rhetoric are anti-male by default. Therefore, feminists are anti-male.

>>107502
I honestly can't clean your point from your post

>>108237
They're responding to the OP's picture and saying IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE EVERYONE DIES OF BAD THINGS!

They have no point and are spouting things that mean nothing.

>>108147
See, when the problem you currently have is the one you're attacking the feminists for. You act like all women want a powerful strapping lad to lift them off their feet and carry them off into the woods and make babies while screeching that they hate masculinity. But there's two separate groups of ladies who want two different things. One despises what us humans consider masculine because they associate it with douchebros who want to get a woman drunk and then fuck her when she's unconcious, or just walk up to them and grab their ass without even a polite "may you be so kind as to offer me a gander and gentle squeeze at thou's behind?"
This is what they mean by toxic masculinity, a.k.a. asshole behavior

>>108348
but the thing is, douchebros come in all shapes and sizes. Some are sleazy farts like our current fuck up of a president, some are cheerful idiots like the runner-up's husband. Some look like a trustful grandfather type like Bill Cosby.

>>108349
and even more are, indeed, overly compensating for their perceived weakness and act as "masculine" as they need to, and treat people like crap when it's offputting.

>>108348
And how many of these feminists ask a man out on a date? How many of these feminists date a man less assertive than herself?
None of them. Because they don't give a fuck about equality, and they do all want a "pwerful strapping lad" who conforms to traditional gender roles. IE, the man has to take all of the initiative and make the first move. But somehow, despite these feminists (let alone traditionalist women) refusing to date a man that treats her like an equal, somehow they never admit that women are putting pressure on men to conform to traditional gender roles

Fuck off with your bullshit, traditional gender roles exist because women, even feminist women, want them to exist. It's bad enough for feminist women to expect men to conform to traditional gender roles but now with your "toxic masculinity" bullshit you actually blame men for it somehow.

If you can't see this then YOU ARE THE ANTI-MALE FEMINIST ASSHOLE

>>108350
That problem would be probably be smaller if boys could grow up with more male role-models and have a healthy proud sense of masculinity instilled into them that isn't the product of endlessly neurotic hand wringing and inconsistent support/demonization at the hands of feminists. Some boys don't even interact with grown men on a regular basis until high-school given the rate of single-motherhood and the sheer overwhelming female dominance of primary school instructors. Treating boys like they're defective girls is a surefire way to get more of that overly brash, impulsive, selfish, self-destructive, violent, and stupid form of masculinity because boys don't know how to do it naturally and so they overcompensate. It's like a religious convert going overboard in their practices because they're trying to make up for lost time and their status as a newcomer.

>>108384
Not him but I see a crisis of masculinity facing young men today, they are increasingly dropping out of society, and I think that in part it's because they can't see their place in a world that increasingly demonises them for normal male behaviour

You hit the nail on the head when you said boys need male role models, and with the epidemic of single mothers producing dysfunctional criminals, it should be clear that's what young men need

I also worry deeply that the increasing numbers of boys growing up without fathers will only worsen

>>107372
Fascism killed 2/3 of European Jews in a decade. What percentage of the men of any continent has feminism killed in a comparable amount of time? 1%? 2%? Maybe 5%?

>>107459
>patriarchy theory or rape culture for instance.
Neither of those things are "man-hating".

>>107628
>MRAs for the most part are egalitarians
Yeah and Communism is a good idea...in theory. The "MRAs" I've encountered focus more on being anti-feminist than on actually helping men. Given a choice between helping men and hurting feminists, they'd choose the latter.

>>107753
>toxic masculinity, rape culture...mansplaining
I think "manspreading" is retarded, but there's nothing misandrist about acknowledging the others. "Toxic masculinity" does not mean "masculinity is toxic", btw, it means "certain ASPECTS of the broad concept of masculinity are toxic."

>>108142
>I'm sorry, you're never going to convince me 'toxic masculinity,' was never anything but a pussyfooted way to condemn masculinity as a whole while maintaining an escape hatch for when an opponent catches whiff of the inherent bigotry that comes with the idea.
In other words, you're unwilling to engage in fair and honest debate, and would rather make up conspiracy theories that accept that you might possibly be wrong.

>>108227
Reminder that accusing someone of "white-nighting" isn't an argument, rebuttal, or refutation.

>>108230
>Feminist policies and rhetoric are anti-male by default. Therefore, feminists are anti-male.
Not an argument. That's like saying "Donald Trump is a lampshade by default. Therefore Trump supporters are pro-lampshade."

>>108373
Fuck all the way off with your projection bullshit. Of the gender policing I've suffered as a male, 90% of it comes from other males. And it's not like I completely avoid females, either. And yes, some feminist women may be attracted to "traditionally" masculine men, but that's not the same as encouraging traditional gender roles. It's like the difference between "I'm not sexually attracted to the same sex" and "People shouldn't be allowed to be gay."

>>108142
>They take natural male tendencies and frame them as a gendered pathology in need of a cure.
Suppose for example there was a group of people that regularly damaged others' property - smashing windows, starting fires, etc. And every time they were confronted for their crimes, they'd say "No, that's not REALLY property damage, I was just letting off some steam!" or "I was just goofing around, what's the big deal?" Would you consider these people fit to live in society as first-class citizens?

If your answer is "no" and you also consider rape to be at least as bad as property damage, you yourself are opposed to rape culture. Rape culture is not "thinking it's okay to rape people", or if it is, that's only a small part of it. What it's really about is FAILING TO UNDERSTAND what rape and consent actually mean. It's the attitude that if someone agrees to go home with you, that means they implicitly consent to whatever sexual activities you plan on doing that night. It's the attitude that doing your part in a relationship means you're entitled to sex.

If this inability to understand consent really is a "natural male tendency", society is obligated to either work to correct it, or recognize that men as a group are not fit to live as first class citizens. If a group murders without realizing they are harming people, would you feel safe around them? If a group burns down houses without realizing they are harming people, would you feel safe around them? Why, then, should people be expected to feel safe about a group that rapes without realizing they are harming people?

>>108463
Maybe read the entire thread or at least the comment chain before responding.

>>108473
There are MRAs who take things in an extreme direction, but being anti-feminist is required to be a men's rights activist now. As an example, NOW has repeatedly and successfully coerced state legislatures to back down from passing laws that would make joint-custody a starting point in all cases of divorce. Tell me, how can you support the rights of fathers without clashing with the largest and most powerful feminist organization in the US at that point? Hurting feminists is helping men because feminists are hurting men.

Manspreading is inherently misandrist because like so much of what feminism does, it takes a universal showing of bad manners, taking up lots of space on public transit, and attaches a gender-qualifier and then attributes it all to a nebulous sense of male entitlement rather than human laziness. The fact public awareness campaigns got so widespread for it the NYC metro ended up spending taxpayer money to placard subways with anti-manspreading signs while nobody seems to be bitching about purses makes it obviously misandrist.

Toxic masculinity means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Its overly worded definitions stay in academia, while in real practical life it allows whoever is speaking to frame whatever aspect of masculinity they revile as a societal pox while maintaining the image of a fighter for gender equality. I live in a liberal city and for every person I've asked about it it's become more and more obvious what qualifies as toxic changes wildly from person to person. I'm willing to debate it, I've just never had anyone come close to making me think otherwise.

>>108476
I don't care. Rape culture's definition changes every time I query about it. To some it is nothing less than a society that permits widespread rape and to others its anything that shows women's bodies to be sexually desirable in a public way.

The former I oppose, as I think most people who believe in any sort of civilized society do. However I've seen it applied too flippantly to take its admonishment seriously, especially when coming from feminists. When you watch ideologues label video game characters in skin-tight catsuits or buxom posed mannequins as rape culture it loses all meaning for me. Even some of your examples do the same. If someone is in a relationship with another person and is holding up their end of the obligations, they're entitled to sex, but most normal people would certainly expect it regardless of gender. I fail to see how acknowledging the importance of the physically intimate aspect of a relationship equates to rape culture. Why would you be in a relationship with someone you don't intend to sleep with anyway?

Rape culture, like toxic masculinity, seems to have a commendable goal somewhere in its awkward original definition, but its real life application and use undermines it and makes it obvious its a rhetorical device to castigate and shame natural male sexuality for supposedly reinforcing a culture of acceptance for heinous crimes.

The inability to recognize consent as it is defined by feminists does not constitute an inability to recognize consent.

>>108530
>*they're not entitled to sex

>>108530
>>108531
>If someone is in a relationship with another person and is holding up their end of the obligations, they're not entitled to sex, but most normal people would certainly expect it regardless of gender. I fail to see how acknowledging the importance of the physically intimate aspect of a relationship equates to rape culture.
It's not, what constitutes "rape culture" is when people basically think women/relationships are a deterministic "put money in, get sex out" sort of thing, or that in a relationship someone shouldn't be allowed to refuse sex at a particular time, even if they're generally willing to have sex. It comes down to the difference between "expectation" and "entitlement".

>Why would you be in a relationship with someone you don't intend to sleep with anyway?
There ARE some people who are interested in romantic but non-sexual relationships, though those are pretty rare, probably even less common than people interested in open relationships.

>>108547
Then the example given here >>108476 needed to be expanded because it's woefully worded in that context. It's a perfect example of a term meaning a world of difference with slight changes of personal verbiage.

I also think the purveyors of this idea of rape culture are trying very hard to simplify this problem down to one they can easily weaponize for their political motives. Thinking you're entitled to sex at any time just for being in a relationship is stupid, but then so is indignation at the idea of someone expecting physical intimacy to be a part of their relationship. Rape culture rarely if ever leaves enough room for those distinctions and grey areas and in all too many practical applications ends up vilifying entitlement and expectation at the same time.

And if someone is interested in a completely non-physical, non-sexual relationship, they absolutely need to make that clear before anything goes anywhere. Someone getting mixed signals due to one party's failure to communicate is not a rape culture.

>>108476
>recognize that men as a group are not fit to live as first class citizens

This is SO feminist sounding it's not even funny. I really hope this is just a troll baiting.

Anon seems to be implying men as a group are a bunch of rapists, and probably ignores that women are often sexual predators and rapists as well, and in general have no better an understanding of consent than men.

>>108473
>Yeah and Communism is a good idea...in theory. The "MRAs" I've encountered focus more on being anti-feminist than on actually helping men. Given a choice between helping men and hurting feminists, they'd choose the latter.
You have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, how does being anti-feminist conflict with being egalitarian? You can't compare feminists hating men to MRAs hating misandry, those aren't on the same level.
Second have you ever looked into how the MRM came about? It was created by feminists who wanted to help men, and they only became anti-feminist once they realized most feminists were against them. If you can't see MRAs trying to help men then you obviously aren't looking for any

>Not an argument. That's like saying "Donald Trump is a lampshade by default. Therefore Trump supporters are pro-lampshade."
Is Donald Trump a lampshade? No. A more accurate analogy would be like saying "Donald Trump is anti-illegal-immigration, therefore Trump supporters are also anti-illegal-immigration"
You might find a few exceptions, just like you could find a handful of fringe feminists that aren't anti-male, but the feminist movement overall has been anti-male.

>>108475
Fuck all the way with your bullshit bullshit.
>And it's not like I completely avoid females, either.
No but I'll bet they avoid you

>And yes, some feminist women may be attracted to "traditionally" masculine men
not some, almost all of them will refuse to date a man unless he adheres to traditional gender roles
How exactly are men "policing" your gender roles? "Oh no, if I don't live up to traditionalist expectations my friends will make jokes at my expense" isn't really in the same league as "if I don't live up to traditional gender roles I'll die a kissless virgin"
Maybe you're some anomaly that actually cares about the first one more, but for most men it's the latter that actually forces them to adhere to traditional gender roles

>>108473
>>I'm sorry, you're never going to convince me 'toxic masculinity,' was never anything but a pussyfooted way to condemn masculinity as a whole while maintaining an escape hatch for when an opponent catches whiff of the inherent bigotry that comes with the idea.

> "Toxic masculinity" does not mean "masculinity is toxic", btw, it means "certain ASPECTS of the broad concept of masculinity are toxic."

oo look you did it. you used weasel words to mask up the fact that you think masculinity is toxic while maintaining that its "not technically" toxic so you cant be blamed for the fact that its bigoted EXACTLY LIKE >>108142 PREDICTED

damn bitch. pay attention to the arguments youre making.

>>107809
But the problem is that there IS a very good reason for their stance against the joint-parenting bill. If either of the parents doesn't contest it, then the court is forced to presume that joint custody is the correct choice without further investigation, regardless of the rights or desires of the children/parents. Is it justice if a court ordered you to live with your abusive father because your mother couldn't obtain legal representation?

A little learning is a dangerous thing...

>>107690
Came her to post this.

>>108758
>But the problem is that there IS a very good reason for their stance against the joint-parenting bill. If either of the parents doesn't contest it, then the court is forced to presume that joint custody is the correct choice without further investigation, regardless of the rights or desires of the children/parents. Is it justice if a court ordered you to live with your abusive mother because your father couldn't obtain legal representation?
>A little learning is a dangerous thing...

>>108758
First, that's not how the joint custody bills work. They go with joint custody UNLESS the court has a reason NOT to do it. If one of the parents is unfit or hasn't been involved with the child, then the court doesn't go with joint custody. But, if both parents are good parents and have been involved with the kids, the court can't just say "Well mom gets it because women are better parents" which still happens a lot
Second, have you looked at the reasoning NOW gives for their opposition? Their reasons are things like "fathers are all abusive" or "the only reason a dad would ever want custody is to avoid child support" or "all men did was donate sperm, the mother is the one who had to give birth." It's pure sexist bullshit, and this is actually the original issue that split the MRAs from feminists (before the dispute over fathers came up, most MRAs were also feminists)

> Is it justice if a court ordered you to live with your abusive father because your mother couldn't obtain legal representation?
that's.... exactly the point. Right now, abusive mothers get full custody of children because the father can't afford to fight a lengthy legal battle. This way if you can't afford to fight it, at least the good parent still gets half custody. And if you do take it to court, then joint custody laws only give joint custody if BOTH parents are fit. If one is abusive or a drug addict etc, then they don't get custody

>>108557
>>recognize that men as a group are not fit to live as first class citizens
I'm not even endorsing this attitude. I'm just saying that if an inability/unwillingness to understand consent REALLY is just "natural male tendencies" (which I DON'T believe, but anti-feminists claim it is), then men by definition are incompatible with civilized society.

>No but I'll bet they avoid you
Not really. If anything I interact with them more than I do with other guys.

>How exactly are men "policing" your gender roles? "Oh no, if I don't live up to traditionalist expectations my friends will make jokes at my expense" isn't really in the same league as "if I don't live up to traditional gender roles I'll die a kissless virgin"
They've physically harassed me for not being sufficiently masculine. If you think virginity is worse than violence, you're retarded.

>>108756
If you think nuance is "weasel words", then fine, stay ignorant. I'm only trying to hlep you understand, but if you're going to insult me for trying to explain myself to you, don't blame me if I decide I'm better off just pretending you don't exist.

Do you think Creation (ahem, I mean ``intelligent design") should be taught in schools? No? Why do you hate Christians so much?

That's the reasoning you're using here. You're saying that we cannot criticize ANY aspect of masculinity without being misandrist. You're turning masculinity into a cult, and anyone who questions it is labeled a heretic.

>>108941
second two replies are supposed to be to this person >>108623.

>>108941
>If you think nuance is "weasel words", then fine, stay ignorant.

weasel words as described by wikipedia:
>words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated. This can enable the speaker to later deny the specific meaning if the statement is challenged

now lets look at what you said vs the claim that was made.
>certain aspects of the broad concept of masculinity are toxic
vs
>masculinity is toxic
masculinity is toxic has a clear meaning. and isnt ambiguous at all. however the "certain concepts" (what concepts) and "broad concept" make what you're saying VERY vague, and thus basically impossible to attack for its point.

here, let me argue for you. if you wanted to be "nuanced" like youre pretending you are. you could say something like, "masculinity itself is not toxic, however certain things that are considered 'masculine' are toxic, such as aggressive behavior and emotional insensitivity."

if you think making a broad, bigoted statement while staying vague to protect your point is "nuanced" then fine. stay ignorant. im just trying to help you understand that your arguments arent arguments but rather hateful statements. but if youre going to insult me for trying to explain yourself to you, dont blame me if everyone in the thread decides theyre better off hiding your posts and pretending you dont exist.

>>108950
>"masculinity itself is not toxic, however certain things that are considered 'masculine' are toxic, such as aggressive behavior and emotional insensitivity."
Okay, that's basically the point I was trying to get across, and as far as I can tell, that is covered under the words I did in fact use. Maybe you interpreted them differently, but if that's the case, know that's not what I was trying to get across.

I also notice that you distinguish between "masculinity itself" and "things that are considered masculine", though I personally do not consider that distinction useful, since "masculinity" isn't really an objective thing, it's basically determined by what people consider to be typical of and appropriate for males. So basically my point is, some behaviors that fall under the umbrella of "masculinity" can and should be criticized, but such a criticism should not be taken as an attack on EVERYTHING that falls under masculinity.

>>109059
you lack any real statements. the difference between what i said and what you said is i NAMED ASPECTS that are 'toxic' (and only named them as examples for the record). at the end of your post you literally vague-ed it back up and essentially undid everything you said to indicate that you werent attacking masculinity as a whole. then you feigned that you werent attacking it while simultaneously saying that it should be criticized. 10/10
>some behaviors (...) can and should be criticized
but you won't name or criticize them because that would mean that masculinity isnt toxic but certain behaviors that may or may not be considered masculine are toxic.

also note thqd i said things that are considered 'masculine' as in they may not be masculine things. aggressive behavior and emotional insensitivity aren't necessarily masculine but rather things that are labeled as masculine because of the hatred surrounding men, particularly by feminist ideas that purport 'equality' but rather support sexism and misandry.

>>108476
Jesus, you really are a misandrist and you can't even see it.

>>109075
He sees it, and he knows you see it. He just doesn't want anyone else to.

Don't underestimate these idiots. Yes they are mentally inferior, but they are devoted 100% to their cause.

They will ramble on incoherently speaking of tolerance and equality all day. But they know their ideology ends bloody for you.

>>108473
>but there's nothing misandrist about acknowledging the others
They're made-up bullshit that have no resemblance to reality.

>>109073
>but you won't name or criticize them because that would mean that masculinity isnt toxic but certain behaviors that may or may not be considered masculine are toxic.
Okay, here's some examples.
>that men are expected to always be dominant in a relationship, even if neither they nor their partner wants it
>the idea that it is better to die than to show weakness
>that men are shamed for rejecting violence and aggression, even when doing so is the most logical decision
>that men are expected to accept being subjected to unneccessary violence

>>109075
>>109102
No, I'm just pointing out that the perspective of the anon who said "rape culture is just making natural male inclinations out to be a bad thing" is itself misandrist. There is nothing positive about being unable to understand or respect the notion of consent.

They're misandrist for saying that this is a fundamental part of male nature. I reject that notion, I think men are better than that.

>>109217
>>that men are expected to always be dominant in a relationship, even if neither they nor their partner wants it
>the idea that it is better to die than to show weakness
>that men are shamed for rejecting violence and aggression, even when doing so is the most logical decision
>that men are expected to accept being subjected to unneccessary violence
This is called common sense. This isn't some androgynous dystopia, it's real life. Men and women are different and thus will behave differently.

>>108941
TLDR: You support anti-equality feminism but you're too stubborn to admit it, got it thanks go fuck yourself. Understand that none of the feminist women you hang out with give a shit about you

>>109075
They're one of those people that doesn't "hate" men, but also doesn't give a shit about men and doesn't realize that a complete lack of empathy for men is another form of misandry

>>109217
>men expected to be dominant
WHO THE FUCK IS TO BLAME FOR THAT YOU FUCKING MORON????
Do you really think that's somehow the """PatriarchY"""? No, it's the fact that there is no "neither they nor their partner" it's just them. ALL women, INCLUDING THOSE FEMINISTS YOU'RE FRIENDS WITH, expect the man to be dominant in a relationship. Do me a favor, go talk to your feminist friends. Find out how often they ask men out on dates. Find out how often they date men less assertive than themselves. You'll find out real quick just how little feminists want to get rid of traditional gender roles that benefit them

>men accept being subject to violence
again, WHO THE FUCK IS TO BLAME FOR THAT? Did this """""patriarchy""""" come up with the Violence Against WOMEN Act, or was that feminists who called it that because they think violence is only bad when it happens to women? Trump announced he was cutting funding to Violence Against "Women" programs, I heard a lot of feminists complaining about that but curiously none complained when Obama decided that only female victims of violence deserved attention to begin with.
Did you know that Erin Pizzey, the woman who founded the first battered women's shelter in the early 70s, is now an MRA and hates feminists? It's because as soon as she realized men were also victims of DV and said as much, other feminists started attacking her.

>>109217

>rape culture
Go ask your Women's Studies professor if they consider it "rape" when women force men to have sex.
SPOILER ALERT: 99% chance they don't, because virtually all feminist scholars still believe that a man can only be raped via sodomy. And FYI, the Obama administration also said that a woman forcing a man to have sex was NOT rape. How man feminists at the Women's March ever cared about that?

JFC anon, get your head out of your ass and realize that feminists don't give a shit about you. Do you remember Emma Watson's speech about men? That one where she talked about how feminism cares about you? Turns out she only gave that speech to promote the HeForShe campaign, which says that only women matter. Feminists only care about you to the extent that you can help them, that's it. Stop being so fucking naive about this shit

>>109217
The very notion of rape culture is misandrist.

>>109221
Common sense like a woman in the kitchen making sandwiches, amirite?

>>109299
>taking jokes seriously
Though nothing is sexier than an attractive woman with an apron attending to her kitchen duties.

>>108941
>You're turning masculinity into a cult, and anyone who questions it is labeled a heretic.

Sounds just like what SJW feminism does. You never hear them speak a word about toxic femininity. Such a term doesn't even exist in their vocabulary. Female conformity to the senseless, weak gender mode of toxic femininity is more to blame for the failure and victimization of women and the sustenance of this so-called patriarchy than anything else.

>>108473
>MRAs are anti-feminist
And? Seriously, you're actually going with
>Feminists hate men, but MRAs hate feminists so isn't that just as bad?
fuck off, it's literally impossible to support gender equality without being anti-feminist. The fact that you think being anti-misandry is worse than misandry itself is pathetic

>but there's nothing misandrist about """acknowledging""" mansplaining
there's nothing misandrist about telling men they aren't allowed to have opinions? There's nothing misandrist about gender-shaming men into silence?

It's incredible how many of the feminists telling us that #NotAllFeminists hate men, are themselves man-haters.

>That's like saying "Donald Trump is a lampshade by default. Therefore Trump supporters are pro-lampshade."
False equivalence. Donald Trump is not a lampshade. Feminism IS irrefutably an anti-male movement. If Donald Trump was a lampshade, then you could say that his supporters are pro-lampshade or at least comfortable with lampshades, and it would be just as accurate as saying that feminists are fine with misandry since that is what the movement represents

>>108623
>It was created by feminists who wanted to help men, and they only became anti-feminist once they realized most feminists were against them
this is one of the big things that made me consider feminism complete garbage.
they did great things to help women, yet the moment they try to help men they get attacked and harassed by the feminists they helped.
sure is equality.

>>108107
I, as an attractive male, fucking hate you. I don't know who you are or what you are like, but the ignorance you are displaying with conviction is more than enough. I get sexually assaulted a couple times or more every year and there is abso-fucking-lutely nothing I can do about it because I am a man. I can't even tell them to stop because "You liked it, don't lie." Bitch you don't know me, I like penis. I even go out of my way to avoid people because they can't keep their fucking hands to themselves.

Sexual harassment usually precedes the assault but I still can't prevent it. As an afterthought, it's always the most left leaning females that can't restrain themselves and I am left to wonder if I'm left at all on my political leanings.

Food for thought, what if that was a man doing it to women?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k94PjZU3QgQ

>>109386
At this point, with how little the upcoming generations of rightwing thinkers care about how upset being gay makes anyone versus the way the left has been continually tossing gay men under the bus, you're probably a lot more moderate/center minded than you think.

An Islamic extremist son of refugees walks into a gay nightclub, kills 50 people, and the immediate concern of leftwingers across the internet is sympathy for how the act is going to make Muslims look.

A gay billionaire helps bankroll Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker and the rest of the leftwing tabloid sphere tries to reason away his very identity and status as a gay man because it's inconvenient to their politics.

The National Student Union in the UK actually reasoned itself into passing policy that excludes gay men from having representation in their LGBT campaigns because they've apparently been deemed not oppressed enough for it.

You wouldn't be the first person the left has seemingly abandoned in their dizzying rush to the inevitable extremist positions their policies lead to, and you certainly won't be the last.

>>108473

> Donald trump is a lampshade

Oy vey! He found out

>>109221
Sorry, no. I don't get why I should accept violent acts being commited against me, just for living my life without harming others, just because I'm "different". Apparently a society free of senseless violence is a ``dystopia" to you. Just how delusional are you?

>WHO THE FUCK IS TO BLAME FOR THAT YOU FUCKING MORON????
>Do you really think that's somehow the """PatriarchY"""? No, it's the fact that there is no "neither they nor their partner" it's just them. ALL women, INCLUDING THOSE FEMINISTS YOU'RE FRIENDS WITH, expect the man to be dominant in a relationship. Do me a favor, go talk to your feminist friends. Find out how often they ask men out on dates. Find out how often they date men less assertive than themselves. You'll find out real quick just how little feminists want to get rid of traditional gender roles that benefit them
You don't get it, do you? This isn't about relationships (no one is entitled to a relationship anyway, so "discrimination" in relationships really doesn't exist in the first place), it's the idea that even outside of relationships, even if someone CHOOSES TO AVOID RELATIONSHIPS ENTIRELY, the dominant role is forced on them. Women aren't sexually attracted to submissive men, and that's fine. But men see submissive men as a threat to their existence that must be destroyed.

>>109706
>But men see submissive men as a threat to their existence that must be destroyed.
What did she mean by this ?

>>109710
Did you just assume my gender SHITLORD?????

>>109262
>Understand that none of the feminist women you hang out with give a shit about you
They at least don't go out of their way to harm me. Which is more that can be said about most guys.

>again, WHO THE FUCK IS TO BLAME FOR THAT? Did this """""patriarchy""""" come up with the Violence Against WOMEN Act, or was that feminists who called it that because they think violence is only bad when it happens to women? Trump announced he was cutting funding to Violence Against "Women" programs, I heard a lot of feminists complaining about that but curiously none complained when Obama decided that only female victims of violence deserved attention to begin with.
So all those men who committed violent acts against me because I wasn't masculine enough, that's all women's fault? Is that seriously what you are saying? That males, even those who are too young to have relationships, have no agency and everything they do is because of some evil conspiracy of women against non-masculine males?

>>109263
> That one where she talked about how feminism cares about you? Turns out she only gave that speech to promote the HeForShe campaign, which says that only women matter.
Ah yes, because Emma Watson doesn't actually understand the English language, and doesn't use words to mean what they actually mean, but uses words that mean one thing while actually intending to mean whatever goes along with your delusional narrative.

>>109268
So then tell me, why does rape happen?

>>109347
But feminists do criticize "toxic femininty" though. They do it so much that one of the major negative stereotypes of them is that they don't think any women should be stay-at-home mothers.

>there's nothing misandrist about telling men they aren't allowed to have opinions?
That's not what "mansplaining" refers to. That's like saying it's Islamophobic to say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to kill non-Muslims.

>>109710
I mean that men will go out of their way to physically harm men whom they perceive as submissive, feminine, or insufficiently masculine. The worst that women will do to such men is choose not to date them.

I personally believe that, so long as one is not an immediate threat to the safety of others, violence against them is unjustified; however no one is entitled to a relationship. So men's treatment of feminine men is morally unjustified; women's treatment of feminine men is frustrating, but not immoral.

>>109714
You're holding men and women to different standards.

You don't think women can be moral?

Or men are just naturally immoral?

>>109712
>why does rape happen?
What an asinine question.

We are animals with varied behavioral patterns.

2+2=4

Fish can breathe underwater.

Do you need any more basic facts about life?

>>109712
>>109706
Holy shit you are just really dumb

>>109734
Hes a subjectivist. Determined to believe there is no objective truth.

It leads to all kinds of absurd thought patterns.

His goal is not to debate, but rather to boil every conversation down to, "meh."

>>109706
>But men see submissive men as a threat to their existence that must be destroyed.

if you stop acting like such a massive faggot, then maybe you wouldnt get bullied so much.

>>107298
Well the Judge might keep their personal views and their professional obligations separate.
...
Who am I kidding, it's a woman. Women don't know what "keep your personal feelings seperate" even means.

>>109714
>>109712
>most guys go out of their way to harm me
>all those men who committed violent acts against me because I wasn't masculine enough
dude wtf are you even talking about? I've known tons of effeminate men, even flaming gays, and I'm not an alpha myself. I have no idea where these gangs of men are that go around beating up men for not being maculine, but I've never come across them.
Have you ever considered that they aren't beating you for being unmanly? Maybe it's because you're just kind of a moron. Maybe it's because you think "mansplaining" is an actual thing. Maybe they commit violence against a man like you because men like you think violence against men is no big deal, since feminists believe violence is only bad when it happens to women. There are any number of reasons you could be getting beat up, but given how many un-manly men I know that have no problems with violence I doubt that's the reason

>why does rape happen?
Well it must be the Patriarchy telling men that it's okay to rape, since obviously women never commit rape in your delusional feminist world right?

>>107502
>both 100%

>>109721
>You're holding men and women to different standards.
How is that "holding them to different standards?" Pointing out a difference in behavior isn't judging by different standards, it's applying the same standards to both.

>We are animals with varied behavioral patterns.
So why then is rape more common than say, wearing lampshades on your head?

>>109807
See >>109714. I'm not going to stop a harmless behavior to appease violent people. What they're doing is wrong, and should be punished, regardless of my own behavior.

>>109844
>Have you ever considered that they aren't beating you for being unmanly? Maybe it's because you're just kind of a moron. Maybe it's because you think "mansplaining" is an actual thing.
None of that justifies violence though. It only lends support to the belief that men are inherently violent.

>Maybe they commit violence against a man like you because men like you think violence against men is no big deal, since feminists believe violence is only bad when it happens to women.
Feminists don't generally believe that though, at least those that I know. And I was subjected to violence for being male before I even knew what feminism was.

>Well it must be the Patriarchy telling men that it's okay to rape, since obviously women never commit rape in your delusional feminist world right?
Women do commit rape, but for various reasons they don't do it as much as men. And "rape culture" isn't supposed to mean people literally think "it's okay to rape people", it means they have a poor understanding of consent.

>>109859
>So why then is rape more common than say, wearing lampshades on your head?


LOL

What the shizz are you even doing? Trying to comvince people to be a feminist in 2015?? Rhetorical questions. (Meaning do not answer)

I've lost too many brain cells from reading your "thoughts" already.

>>107298
wait wait... is this graphic blaming women for MEN KILLING THEMSELVES? A guy shoots himself, and its someone else's fault??

>>109880
The fact that you don't know is the problem.

Misandry, everyone.

>>109880
Why must you see things in such an adversarial? All it's pointing out is that systemic male privilege does not extend in every direction, and the questions you should be prompted to ask upon seeing something like this is "are males truly privileged?" "Is either sex unilaterally privileged over the other?" "Should society artificially privilege one sex if the other isn't actually priveliged?"

>>109880
Why not? Women toss away the feelings and concerns of men all the time and that's undoubtedly a contributor to male suicide rates. As are divorce and custody laws favoring women so overwhelmingly, as well as feminist groups constantly lobbying public funds away from male shelters or pushing the feminizing of education which leads to increased male dropout rates. Come to think of it, feminists create a lot of problems for men, which is why it's so hilarious to see them complain about men's rights activists opposing them.

It's no less fair than feminists and women blaming male sexuality for the existence of maligned beauty standards women themselves are just as much, if not more so, a contributor to.

>>109880
I think the OP is pointing out how retarded feminists are when they whine about male """privilege"""
Although given that divorced men are one of the highest risk groups for suicide, and 10x more likely to kill themselves than divorced women, yeah you could say feminism/women have something to do with it
also this >>109909
>Women toss away the feelings and concerns of men all the time and that's undoubtedly a contributor to male suicide rates
women, especially feminists, don't really think men have feelings or that our feelings are important. This isn't just a few women, there's a pretty widespread belief among women that men's feelings don't matter nearly as much as women's, and that belief is at the center of feminism

>>109859
You're just beyond reason at this point, all I can guess is you have some serious mental problem where you live in a delusional alternate reality

>>109859
> And I was subjected to violence ... before I even knew what feminism was.
...Hasn't everyone? You have to live in a pretty perfect utopian ideal to never experience violence first hand.

>>109920
It's also one of their biggest and most obvious examples of blatant hypocrisy. In one breath they'll say men shouldn't have to be stoic, reserved, and stable with their emotions a la "toxic masculinity," and then in the next breath they'll shame a man being frank about his concerns with endless nonsense about derailing and male tears.

You lose any right to call yourself a gender equality movement when you do nothing to shut down misandrists selling male tears merchandise to jubilant crowds.

>>109939
As far as I can tell this poster is just an insufferable twat who pisses off everybody he comes in contact with for reasons that have nothing to do with him being "effeminate," yet he somehow attributes all of his bullying to this when the reality is: People just hate him because he's an insufferable twat

>>109965
>Feminism is fighting for men too, it's important not to shame men into hiding their emotions or telling them they have to "man up"
>#MasculinitySoFragile
>oh my God why are MRAs always whining about being victims of rape or violence? Just deal with it who cares!
>Oh you feel bad because your life was ruined by a false rape accusation? Well check your privilege and stop whining!

>>109859
>Feminists don't generally believe that though, at least those that I know
where the fuck do you live that this is true? In the US every feminist I know supports the Violence Against Women Act because they think only women are being abused. Feminists in the US have also been very hostile towards any attempt to even talk about DV against men. It's the same in Canada, Australia and most of western Europe. So you're either full of shit, or you live in some weird paradise that's not at all representative of where most people on 4chan live

>but for various reasons they don't do it as much as men.
The biggest reason women don't """rape""" as much as men is because your dear feminist leaders refuse to call it "rape" when women force men to have sex. If you ever decide to leave your feminist echo chamber and actually learn something about men's issues, take a look at how academic feminists (and the Obama administration) have manipulated rape studies by only calling it "rape" when the victim is penetrated, so a woman who forces a man to have sex isn't commiting rape. Thanks feminism!!!

>>109712
>because Emma Watson doesn't actually understand the English language, and doesn't use words to mean what they actually mean, but uses words that mean one thing while actually intending to mean whatever goes along with your delusional narrative.
it's like you're trying to be clever but don't know how. Emma Watson doesn't know what "equality" means because she evidently thinks "equality" means "everybody should ignore men's issues and men should focus on ending misogyny"
Nobody except delusional feminists like yourself can look at the message of the HeForShe campaign and believe it's about "equality"

>That's not what "mansplaining" refers to
That's exactly what mansplaining refers to. My GOD you are either the epitome of a self-loathing male feminist or you are just really fucking dense

>>109865
The point being that "varied behavioral patterns" isn't a valid explanation of rape. Sure, different people do different things, but why is rape so much more common than some other behaviors?

>>109939
Uh, what? Maybe if you live in the third world, but really, you think being subjected to violence before even turning 18 is normal in the civilized world?

>>109972
>every feminist I know supports the Violence Against Women Act because they think only women are being abused.
Can you read their minds? Did they actually say that men aren't being abused? Or is the whole "they think only women are being abused" thing just something you're projecting on them because they support VAWA? Let me guess, you also think anyone who supports Black Lives Matter thinks that non-black lives don't matter?

>That's exactly what mansplaining refers to.
No, it doesn't. Mansplaining is when a man thinks he's more qualified on a topic, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS A MAN. Like a man trying to tell a woman how a car works, even though the woman is an auto mechanic and he isn't. Opposing mansplaining doesn't mean you think men shouldn't have opinions, it means you think being a man doesn't automatically make your opinions right.

>>110054
Yeah I really wish the USA wasn't a third world country.
I really wish Car accidents weren't didn't exist.
I really wish violent video games didn't exist.
I really wish criminals didn't resist.
I really wish Fires didn't burn stuff.
I really wish Wild animals didn't exist.
I really wish child birth didn't exist.
I really wish animals didn't have to die to be eaten.
I really wish pigs could fly.
...I don't think you understand what violence is. Violence is unavoidable in anything short of a utopian ideal.

Do you know how stupid you sound?

>>110054
>RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE KILL ALL MEN RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE EQUALITY RAPE RAPE RAPE

>>110054
>unironically trying to mansplain what "mansplaining" means
Anon I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to check your privilege

>>110071
Did you just assume xir's gender???

>>110054
>just projecting on them
"Hey guys, I don't think the federal government should acknowledge that men can be abused. But *I* totally think men can be abused!"
wtf kind of retard logic is this? Do you ever stop and think just how dumb most of feminism is?

>>110066
>we can't totally eliminate violence, therefore we should not make any attempt to reduce it!
If anyone here sounds stupid, it's you.

>>110247
Uh, the VAWA doesn't say "the government shouldn't acknowledge that men can be abused" though. The current version of VAWA even explicitly says that organizations receiving federal funding through it cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sex or gender. Before you go around calling people retards, you should actually make an effort to understand the thing you're talking about.

>>110054
>Let me guess, you also think anyone who supports Black Lives Matter thinks that non-black lives don't matter?

That wouldn't exactly be a faulty assumption given how much that "movement," has become blatantly one of black supremacy.

Actually, you picked a perfect example to compare to. On the barest surface it sounds like a movement worth supporting for its most G-rated of mission statements, but digging anywhere beneath that facade reveals lots of hate, anger, hypocrisy, apathy for others, blatant lies through false information, and an unapologetic self-centered narcissism. Just like feminism.

>>110249
Yes it is clear that the Violence Against "WOMEN" Act is all about recognizing that al genders can be victims of violence
>feminists will unironically claim this
People wouldn't hate your movement so much if you were just honest about it. It's the whole "we hate men but refuse to admit we hate men" part that really pisses people off

>>110249
Can you give me one reason to call the Violence Against Women Act the "Violence Against Women Act" that ISN'T simply "we don't think men can be victims of DV / we don't care about victims of DV?" Ditto for the Office on Violence Against Women

No, you can't. Just like you can't defend how feminists treated Erin Pizzey. Just like how you can't defend how feminists actively suppressed early DV research because it showed that women abused men as much as the other way around. Just like you can't defend the Duluth Model. Just like you can't defend anything about your shitty movement except by deflecting and becoming even more delusional.

Just give up. You aren't going to convince anybody here to hate men as much as you hate yourself. And we're probably not going to convince you to gain a shred of self-respect

>>110267
>And we're probably not going to convince you to gain a shred of self-respect

I'm sad now. Someone figure out how to help these guys.

>>110270
If it makes you feel better, 99% chance that anon is either a teenager or at most 20-21. By their mid-20s you'll find very few male feminists remaining. Some guys take longer than others but eventually they gain a backbone and learn to stop hating themselves just to try getting approval from women

>>110271
Ideally we can stop this shit from happening because it can take years to rewire the brain. Most people don't have the time or interest cure themselves completely. It's not like a therapist can help.

>>110249
>we can't totally eliminate violence, therefore we should not make any attempt to reduce it!
I really don't know how you pulled that out of your ass. Bravo to you though.

If you couldn't understand what I was arguing, I'll go ahead and explain it since it seems metaphors are a tad above you.

You, not clearly understanding anything, want no violence to happen before people turn 18, or at least it be a rare case. Violence in the civilized world is normal. It's not a do I think, well golly Gee gosh there I don't think it should be so therefore it isn't, kind of thing. It's fucking reality, so I gave you examples of violence that is unavoidable and that is normalized in the civilized world.

How you went from reality to saying I don't want to reduce violence is beyond me... but uh... that child birth stuff is pretty fucking brutal. Best get rid of women, they cause it to happen in the first place. That will definitely reduce violence towards female genitalia. Feminism, amirite?

>>110271
This is patently untrue publicly at least. The real issue is that saying you're not a feminist in many circles is akin to saying "I fuck donuts". It ain't illegal, but people immediately have a negative opinion of you.

The thing about men that are feminists (and most women that are feminists if you can get them to have an honest conversation, and you usually can't) is that they just don't know shit. Honestly, it's surprising until the 300th time you encounter it. I had a conversation with a girl I used to date about it after she texted me a picture of her and her mom at the vagina hat march and I put forth a very simple question that frustrated her to no end. "I support equality among the sexes, therefore, I would like to support your cause...so what are the rights that men have that women currently do not have in the United States so that I can make myself politically active to change this".

Abortion. That's it. Abortion and pussy grabbing. That's all they have to say. They can't find one, because there isn't one. I, however, was able to identify multiple institutions that actively discriminate against men. They (both men and women) just hear shit and believe. They don't research these things. They don't question them. They just believe it.

That's the real sad part about all of this.

>>110331
The fact academia and particularly the humanities are fucking infested top to bottom with legitimately stupid communists doesn't help either. I want the entire education system to undergo massive reform and purging the pinko scum from their pedestal above reproach is one of the major reasons for that.

Unfortunately I don't have any confidence the people to lead that crusade wouldn't turn around and start doing the same thing with their pet issues. If the GOP could drop the God & oil fascination and provided a workable framework for reform the public would be on their side 100% if they decided to take a torch to the nest of rats that is the American collegiate system.

>>110250
>Actually, you picked a perfect example to compare to. On the barest surface it sounds like a movement worth supporting for its most G-rated of mission statements, but digging anywhere beneath that facade reveals lots of hate, anger, hypocrisy, apathy for others, blatant lies through false information, and an unapologetic self-centered narcissism. Just like feminism.

And pretty much every liberal cause.

Have you ever realized how racist most liberals and their movements are?

>>110263
>>110267
Look up the Wikipedia article. All of this is explained there. It may be poorly named, but the actual text of the act, at least in its current form, is not gender/sex discriminatory.

>>110283
We can't prevent all violence. But we should work to prevent what violence we can, especially since so much IS preventable. And even though SOME people experience those sorts of violence in the first 20 years of their life, most people in the first world don't.

>>110331
I've known a lot of male feminists who were just as bad as this other anon when they were teenagers, but by their mid-20s they stopped. One of my friends was full-blown spineless white knight in high school and college, now he's in his late-20s and recently posted the trailer for The Red Pill (an upcoming documentary about MRAs) to facebook.
The anon ITT is likely an extremely insecure teenager who uses virtue signalling as a way to convince himself he has value, but in a few years he'll gain some self respect and will drop the feminist act

>>110249
Speaking of the spineless anon who hates his own gender. Regarding feminism's views of violence against men, have you seen this other post? >>108030

Indigenous people in Canada are more likely to be victims of unsolved murders than other Canadians. Despite the fact that it is specifically the indigenous MALES who are most likely to be victims of unsolved murders, feminists convinced the government (headed by feminist Justin Trudeau) that women and girls were the true victims and they were the vulnerable ones. So the commission to investigate it decided to focus exclusively on the murdered/missing women and girls while ignoring the much larger problem of murdered/missing males.
MRAs and families of male victims tried to convince the government to show even a little concern for male life, but the feminist Canadian government won't budge and will instead focus exclusively on the relatively small of victims who had a vagina

Stop believing feminists care about you. They don't. Time and time again we see that the concept of male disposability is very central to feminist policy.

I get that things are fucked up in terms of custody battles and stuff, but most "liberal" stuff in law, which is to say anti-discrimination laws, disproportionately help white males. When you look at who is going to be homeless, live to be an old person, or be mentally ill a large percentage are white dudes. And anti-discrimination laws help protect the elderly, homeless, and mentally ill from housing and employment discrimination.

I want my dad to be protected from elderly abuse, I want my brother to not be able to be fired for being mentally ill, and I want to know that if I was homeless I couldn't be denied things on that basis.

Kind of off-topic, but I think it bears repeating when talking about social justice in the legal system.

>>110742
They do this all the time. Prostate cancer is basically breast cancer for men (death rate) but they don't give a shit.

>>110790
They do more than simply don't give a shit, they actively ridicule attempts to draw attention to that very dynamic like the silly "no-shave November," stuff.

>>110790
This is a false equivalence

Prostate cancer has a much lower death rate, primarily because it is much more likely to stay localised within the prostate whereas breast cancer is quite likely to become metastatic

Breast cancer also affects much younger hosts, and is more likely to be fatal over hosts of every age group

t. Epidemiologist

Feminists are still cunts tho

>this thread
All I can say is that there's going to be a massive backlash from the right, and it's going to happen sooner rather than later. The elections and cleaning out of democrat candidates is a sign of it.

With how entrenched and extreme the left has become I'm beginning to think this backlash might be bloody.

>>110806
Thanks. I could have sworn they were closer in death rate.

One less thing to worry about.

>>110824
>there's going to be a massive backlash from the right
People always say this but there's nothing to support it.

Fuck off with Nazi Germany, there is no comparison to that.

There isn't even a "right-wing" in the west. What you call the right, are just the people who don't like hyper leftist policies changing their country as fast as humanly possible.

The only "backlash" is that people are finally telling crazy faggots they are crazy.

>>110824
The backlash has already begun with the election of Trump and so on, but a lot of people that were involved in getting him elected are already having second thoughts. They're realizing that choosing a candidate almost solely on the basis of who would best say "fuck you" to the left isn't the wisest course of action. His approval rating is crashing and burning faster than virtually any other president, and unless he ends up doing a REALLY great job, there's a good chance he's going to just end up swinging the pendulum back towards the left.

>>110826
>There isn't even a "right-wing" in the west. What you call the right, are just the people who don't like hyper leftist policies changing their country as fast as humanly possible.
Are you from Europe? Because in America, we most certainly do have a right wing, which in many ways is pretty backwards, full of crazy religious fundamentalists and so on. Trump's trying to move the American right away from that, but who knows how successful he's going to be, at this point I'm still rather skeptical. America doesn't really have a meaningful left though, the Democrats are basically neoliberal centrists, the actual left in America is basically relegated to the third party. But from what I've heard, Europe as a rule is much more leftist than America.

>>110826
wew lad

So many average, day to day men that are friends of the family are thirsting for blood already, be thankful Trump was the victor.

>>110830
>The backlash has already begun with the election of Trump
How is that a backlash. We elected the guy who likes our country, instead of the evil hag. lol.


>we most certainly do have a right wing
The religious freaks that nobody respects? Yes technically them and /pol/ may be right wing.

In the general population, it doesn't matter if you vote R or D you are a leftist.

It's a leftist country, being a conservative means conservative to our original leftist principles.

>>110832
>thirsting for blood

only the progressives.

>>110839
>It's a leftist country, being a conservative means conservative to our original leftist principles.
This is the most retarded thing I've read all day.

>>110841
>the founding fathers weren't liberals

You're the retard. Fuck off.

>>110842
Modern day liberals don't hold any of the founders values. Conservatives are the ones who've been protecting the constitution from these mouth frothing leftist retards.

>>110842
>liberals
>leftists

>>110839
>How is that a backlash. We elected the guy who likes our country, instead of the evil hag. lol.
Backlash just means a reaction against something, it doesn't mean you have to have a fucking civil war.

>The religious freaks that nobody respects?
Maybe nobody respects them, but they're still a dominant faction in the GOP.

>>110842
>American education
"Classical liberals" are not leftists. Even "progressives" barely qualify as real leftists.

>>110846
No shit.

>>110848
There is more than one kind of leftist.

founding fathers = classical liberals = leftists

conservatives = classical liberals = "modern right wing"

"liberals" = progressives = communists = "modern left wing"

Welcome to the nonsense that communist subversion creates.

>>110851
>they're still a dominant faction in the GOP.
I totally disagree. They're on the fringe. Ignored unless democrats want someone to debate.

>>110851
>Even "progressives" barely qualify as real leftists
Is communism not considered left wing?

>>110853
>Is communism not considered left wing?
Progressivism is like a ridiculously watered down version of Communism.

>>110859
Progressivism is a stepping stone that leads to Communism.

>>110859
If I put water in my vodka, is it still vodka?

men are made to suffer so women don't have to. one sex's fertility is more worthy, it's just biology.

>>110865
nah

i aint sacrificing shit for women that dont act like women
they can rot

>>110859
Progressivism is just communism with a sweeter facade. Take a cursory look at what progressives teach in academia or what so many self-styled progressives actually think and then compare it to communism. The fact they don't come out and say it or act as useful idiots doesn't change what they are. Just look at how open the Castro dicksucking was when that Cuban Rasputin finally died.

>>110869
They know well that their ideas are unpalatable. This is why they always lie.

>>110867
That was the plan all along, to break down relations between men and women in the west to the point foreigners looked attractive in comparison. Men don't want narcissistic, shallow, selfish, fat idiots for wives and women don't want pathetic, wimpy, poor, faggoty loners for husbands.

What better way to subvert and undermine the stability of the middle class and the power it wields than to attack the very foundation of the familial block supporting it?

>>110830
Don't mistake disapproval for Trump with disapproval for his ideas or policies. Some of them are still very popular. Sanctuary cities for instance are something seemingly nobody but those pushing those policies in the cities themselves like. Even a majority of Californians hate them.

Honestly that's my biggest problem with Trump. He's a fucking idiot and he's going to squander the golden opportunity given to undo what the left has done. His incompetence and the inevitable economic downturn coming in the next few years are going to make sure we get more tankie scum calling shots down the road.

>>110830
>in America, we most certainly do have a right wing
>America doesn't really have a meaningful left though

dishonest sack of shit right here, how can you even pretend this country isn't ruled by "liberals"?

what a fucking joke of an opinion.

>>110877
>He's a fucking idiot
WRONG. This guy has has a high as fuck IQ and ran a shitload of companies. He's smart, he knows exactly what he's doing.

>>110877
>I am now a cruz missle


really can you just fuck off? we like trump and you aren't going to change our minds. he grows more beautiful every day.

did you see that tweet about CNN cutting Bernie? LOL. He's a hero. We need this.

>>110880
I wish I had your enthusiasm. Trust me, I hope you're right and I'm wrong. At least take the dudes Twitter away. That shit is only causing massive problems and it would remove the only reason that shithole of a platform is still running.

>>110883
I did and don't get me wrong, I fucking loathe CNN and love the amount of blood pouring from the media's assholes from the sheer amount of pegs Trump has torn them down, but some of it is starting to get embarrassing.

I want education purged of communist filth. I want a crackdown on democrat-blessed illegal immigration. I want the entertainment industry to go back to doing what it's supposed to do. I want a total reassessment of our global standing with ungrateful allies. I want a simple and unequivocal 'nope,' when it comes to Islamic refugees. The thing is, with every stupid thing Trump says or does those things get farther and farther from becoming reality. I really am hoping he does a good job here.

>>110880

>we like trump and you aren't going to change our minds.

Trump doesn't need your patronage; he's a hundred-millionaire in a country that doesn't allow hundred-millionaires to go bankrupt. If you need to feel cultish about something or someone regardless of any new reasoning or evidence that comes to light, then I can only feel bad for you.

>>110889
I don't see Trump doing stupid things.

I see the media pretending he's doing stupid things 24/7.

People on twitter are acting like that newspaper accidentally used Alec Balwdin instead of Trump. That newspaper, and people that believe it was a mistake, these are the people I'm embarrassed for. They're missing everything.

Trump will lead us in cleaning up the world and these raving animals won't know the difference. SAD!

>>110891
What?

"The only people complaining are men's rights faggots and right wing SJWs."
The only people complaining in Nazi Germany were Jews.

>>110864
If there's so much water in your vodka that no one drinking it can tell it's vodka, what's the point of saying "technically it's vodka?"

>>110869
Progressives don't advocate a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism. Communists do.

>>110879
Liberals are not leftists. Thinking they are is only proving my point. The American left is SO nonexistent that most Americans don't even know what leftism is.

>>110897
>someone wearing a symbol I disagree with is as bad as killing millions of innocent people
And you guys have the nerve to accuse the left of hyperbole?

>>110903
>If there's so much water in your vodka that no one drinking it can tell it's vodka, what's the point of saying "technically it's vodka?"
Because even though it's watered down, it'll get you drunk in time.

You're obviously a defensive lefty.


>The American left is SO nonexistent that most Americans don't even know what leftism is.
Liberals are leftists for all intents and purposes. It does not matter if they are actually communists or progressives.

Everyone in the world (and them) considers them leftists. Fuck off you idiot.

Acting like a retard just to get in the way of conversation, classic leftism.

>>110903
Where have you been the past decade or so where progressives in western countries, and especially in colleges, haven't been advocating the abolition of capitalism or at least characterizing it as the progenitor of all the evils they claim to fight? I think you're getting too caught up on labels here and not on the actual behavior of the people themselves.

And there is an American left, it's just a noxious and shaky combination of liberal corporatism obfuscated by fervent identity politics and empty platitudes (the establishment) and professional protestors, agitators, and idealists who oppose the corporatism but buy into the politics used to sell it.

>>110869
That depends on what you understand by communism, of course if you paint with a broad brush then everyone who is not stereotypically right wing might end up being a communist. Trump for example has been described as a progressive by some paleo-conservatives and the austrians from cato. And from the left's point of views everyone is a Nazi.

>>110918
When a self-styled progressive spends every waking political moment railing against the evils of capitalism, engaging in divisive identity politics, works to undermine ideas like American patriotism, justifies violence against anyone they can fit under a label, and glorifies communist revolutionaries present and past then it's pretty safe to say they're a communist. That label accurately describes a lot of what you will find among the progressive crowds these days, even if they don't choose to wear it.

>>110918
Comrade, you have failed today. 2 weeks punishment in gulag. No chocolate ration, no visiting with wife's children,

>>110921
>glorifies communist revolutionaries present and past
Some of those ended up killing each other due to differences on what communism is or should be

>>110932
It doesn't matter what the varying degrees of commies think about their ideology.

Communism is what it becomes, and it always becomes bloody.

>>110938
Change that for Fascism and you sound like the typical Trump prostester

>>110944
Yeah supporting the constitution is super duper fascist.

Anyone who doesn't hate America is a nazi/fascist whatever, we get it mate.

>>110947
You also seem to share their incapability of self-critique and partisan worldview

>>110949
You stick out like a sore dick

>>110932
And? The acolytes of Stalin and Trotsky all trying to kill each other doesn't change what they all are or what the represent to people who aren't them. Neither one of them had any problems nodding right along when Lenin and Dzerzhinsky were liquidating everyone in their path. Venomous spiders aren't anything other than what they are simply because they also happen to be cannibalistic.

>>110944
Neither fascism nor communism when seriously attempted have resulted in a society without blatant totalitarianism, bloodshed, and rapid collapse.

I understand the danger of knee-jerk labeling that barely applies and the hyperbolic extremism that can lead to, but labeling someone who behaves like a communist as a communist makes perfect sense if what they're doing is indistinguishable from that label. I'm supremely comfortable applying the communist label to people who use Marxist manifestos as teaching aids and textbooks while decrying everything associated with capitalism.

>>110953
Funny, that's the exact same thing your mom said about my dick last night

wtf happened to this thread? It started out as some good ol' feminist bashing, then it turned into one idiot male feminist white knighting it up with his feminist retardation.
But not to be out-done, the /pol/tards wanted to prove that they're the true retards and have now taken over this thread with their own retardedness to one-up the retardedness of the white knight anon

>>110970
As I said...

>>110909
I go to college, and no one is calling for the abolition of capitalism. They sometimes make criticisms of certain aspects of it, but capitalism is not and should not be a sacred cow that can do no wrong. Indeed, you can't claim to be getting a proper education if you're told that everything is perfect. You take criticism of the system as an attack on that system, even though, invariably, any system would be deserving of such criticism.

>>110947
>thinking the media shouldn't be allowed to criticize the government
>supporting the constitution
Choose one.

>>111013
>freedom of speech includes telling lies to damage people

no

>>111016
The government should not be in charge of deciding what is a "lie". Otherwise there's nothing to stop them from labeling any criticism as "fake news".

>>111028
I think everyone should be in charge of calling out fake news, the government included.
What constitutes a lie or fake is not subjective; it's something with truth value.
I don't think the government should regulate lies for its own sake; that would be a naked infringement on constitutional rights of course.

>>111031
Calling something fake news is fine. Using it as an excuse to suppress media and hide it from the population is what I have a problem with. The government should at most be helping people make decisions, not making those decisions for them.

>>110977
>Waaaaah!! People are invading my echo chamber with different opinions!

>>111028
>lies are a matter of opinion

ufkcing die

>>111012
Maybe because the criticisms against said system become more and more of a reach as time goes on. Maybe because the people who take capitalism for granted are shitting all over it for things it has no hand in creating while playing up the virtues of competing ideologies that have astronomical body counts to their name.

There are indeed many people who call for the abolition of capitalism within academia. Where do you think all the misguided college-age protestors and rioters showing up all over the country get their ideas from exactly? There's a difference between criticizing the economic system and going off into farfetched world where people describe the Atlantic Slave Trade and Manifest Destiny as characterized symptoms of it (all while ignoring things like Kolyma and the Holodomor). The fact people who often teach classes critical of capitalism are out and about communists doesn't really help either.

>>111012
>I go to college, and no one is calling for the abolition of capitalism

>but capitalism is not and should not be a sacred cow that can do no wrong

fucking peice of shit commie gtfo

>>111036
>Oh no, I said something retarded and another anon called me retarded! Better say something else retarded, that'll show him!

>>111042
>trusting the government to tell you what is truth


>>111044
Excactly my point, you can't suggest capitalism is even SLIGHTLY flawed without some retard REEEING and saying you hate America

>>111044
>we should get rid of fire departments
>and police departments. You can hire private security if you want it that bad
>also no more public roads
>or public schools, because having a literate populace is over-rated
wow it really is like the /pol/tards saw how retarded the feminist-anon above was being and wanted to prove to everyone that /pol/tards are still king of the retards

>>111333
Didn't you already made this post?

>>110977

Or was that just another cucked leftist? You are indistinguishable.

>>111338
No, I read the other comment and agreed with it
>cucked
yeah really dispelling the idea that you're a fucking retard. Hey how about you call me a CTR shill now, that'll really prove how definitely not retarded you are!

>>111257
Except the people "slightly pointing out flaws," almost always have socialist or communist sympathies and never take that critical lens to the ideologies they hold in high esteem. I noticed that a lot in classes, where capitalist concepts would end up harshly critiqued when they're a much closer representation of practicality than the pie in the sky nonsense coming from Marx that oddly never gets challenged.

>>111333
If that were the extent of what communists preach nobody would have a problem with them. It's not though, and you know it.

Also yes, public schools start to veer into negative territory when they adopt the brainwashing of identity politics and start radicalizing groups against each other.

>>111410
>If that were the extent of what communists preach nobody would have a problem with them.
But it is pointing out flaws in capitalism, which you think to be above criticism

m-muh vagina...

>>111415
I don't actually. I just have a problem with that criticism strangely always coming from adherents or sympathizers to a competing ideology with even less of a basis in practical reality (which rarely sees any criticism) and a short but incredibly bloody history to its name (which is always downplayed).

Criticizing capitalism doesn't make someone a communist. Using Marxist material as a teaching aid to critique capitalism in between venting screeds on the virtues of open borders and proletarian belligerence most likely means they are indeed a communist or a sympathizer, even if they don't adopt the label. If classes critical of both capitalism and communism were taught by fascist sympathizers, would pointing out the existence of those fascists and their sympathizers somehow be an attack on the concept of criticizing capitalism and communism?

Feel free to criticize capitalism all you want, just don't react with indignation if you're doing it from a communist position and get labeled as such. Espousing the ideas of Francisco Franco will make you a fascist, even if you don't call yourself one.

>>111091
>Someone is pointing out my delicate sensibilities and inability to have a debate without degenerating into insults and name-calling! Better call him a faggot that will solve everything.

Talk shit, get hit.

>>111468
Are you lost?

>>111476
*clenches fist*

deal with it

>>111658
>>111479

The fuck are you even on about?

>>111441
>I better keep saying retarded shit, it's too late to change tactics now!
tell me more about how 100% free-market capitalism is a flawless system that perfectly solves every single problem in society and we literally don't need taxes for anything ever.
Tell me more about how the OP has fuck all to do with that to begin with

>>112000
Not that guy but... Are /pol/tards supposed to be fascists or hardcore anarchist capitalists? Can't have both silly person.

>>111726
Try reading the posts above the other posts

If you can't follow the conversation, maybe try shutting the fuck up.

>>112106
also applies to >>111476

>hey I don't get what's going on EXPLAIN IT TO ME NOW

>>112106
>>112107
Neither of these >>111468 >>111658 posts have anything to do with anything. Neither quote anything or are at all relevant to the conversation above them or the thread's topic. Stop defending retarded shitposters.

Lurk more

>>107298
Pink pussy hats are sign of rapture!! JESUS Christ our Lord and savior is coming back soon!

>>112354
That was fucking terrible.

>>107772
Most people, like this judge, have no idea what the symbols mean. The judge has no idea the agenda behind that symbol or the propaganda it represents.

Anyone participating in a modern feminist movement shows clearly they don't have the mental stability or sound mind that should be expected of a judge.

>>112106
The comment chain in question started with >>111468. At no point did the comment chain have anything approaching relevance to the thread topic.

>>112552

GET THE FUCK OFF THIS WEBSITE

>>112483
So are you

>>112652
not an argument

>>112697
Why do you post where you are not wanted?

This must have something to do with the cuckold phenomenon. Miserable fucks just get accustomed to being disliked, perhaps.

>>112712
Is just some faggot pissed off some of the discussions around here aren't going the way he wants them to so he's trying to shit them up as badly as he can. That's where all the irrelevant shitposting keeps coming from.

>>112719
Leftypol thinks they can get a hold on this board.

They don't understand that only children are susceptible to commie propaganda.

>>112712
>>112652
>obvious newfag trying way too hard to fit in

>>112732
How would you like it if people went to your websites and spread nonsense?

You must have real psychological issues.

>>112733
KEK epic comeback anon I'll be sure to post that on /r/4chan for you!

>>112734
>no u

If you're going to stay around at least try to be entertaining.

Or is it your goal to make us pity the left? It's kinda working.

>>112734
>his entire conceptualization of 4chan comes from reddit
That explains the kneejerk veering into irrelevant shitposter town. You guys have no clue how this website works so everything is either an extremely rigid discussion or /s4s/ inanity to you.

Lurk more.

>>112736
No "goal" just pointing out that to anybody who's been here more than a year, it's really really obvious that you're a newfag trying too hard to fit in

>>112745
holy shit you're an idiot

>>112748
>no argument, just more no u
Totally didn't see that coming.

>>112745
You're not fooling anyone. Go try /leftypol/ you might like it better, honestly. There are lots more posters.

>>112745
whoops that >>112751
was meant for the pariah >>112748

>>112750
again, not here to make an argument, just stating objective facts

>>112751
>calling out newfags for being newfags makes me /leftypol/
Gonna stick with "holy shit you're an idiot" thanks
How about you try /b/? You might fit in there better, honestly. There are lots more newfags for you to newfag with. Or just stay on /pol/, they recruited a lot of new people from /r/eddit over the election

>>112756
You are utterly ineffective.

>>112759
Once again, not sure how I can be "ineffective" when there's no effect to take place. I am just stating some objective facts, you can keep denying the obvious if you want though

>>112760
Keep posting. It's good education for the next generation of conservatives.

Observe your opposition... yes that's it. The only reason the left makes progress is because everyone else has a life.

>>112762
>finding a new website and pretending that you aren't new
yes I can tell you really have a life!

>>112764

>no u


You see friends, they lack originality on a fundamental level. This is an unfortunate side-effect of the communist ideology.

>>112767
>Who cares if your facts are accurate? They aren't as original as my alternative facts!
Sorry anon this isn't a competition to see who is the most original. This is just seeing how long a delusional idiot like you can keep lying until you give up. It seems I underestimated your stupidity, you must be quite the idiot to be this dedicated to your lie even after being called out on it

It seems fine to me. It's just a fucking hat. If someone wore a "March for Life" hat or something, I'd be fine with it to. Who the fuck cares?

>>112756
The hilarious thing is you can't keep your anons straight.

>>112819
In addition to be stupidly unprofessional it also calls into question said judge's ability to fairly assess cases based on her bias. Hell, wearing a pussy hat into a courtroom is a lapse in judgment enough to be concerned. You might be fine with tolerating yet another institution degrading into another irreverent political shit show, but some of us still want it to function the way it was intended to.

There's also the point of it being a major double standard given people have already posted stories ITT of the converse action being swiftly punished.

>>112819
It's not just a hat, it's a hat that represents hatred of men and the belief that men do not deserve to be treated as equals. Somebody posted above that a judge was removed for wearing a MAGA hat. A MAGA hat is inappropriate too but at least that's just political bias, not personal bias like with feminism.
Feminism in general has fought against men being treated like equals in family court, and the Women's March specifically (which is where this judge's hat is from) advocated for giving women preferential treatment in criminal courts. Men are ALREADY discriminated against in the courts due to their gender, and now you have a judge openly stating "yes I think courts should discriminate against men."
What is somebody supposed to think if they're a father going through a divorce, and this is their divorce judge? Or if they're a man falsely accused of rape, and this is the judge presiding over their trial? The judge is proudly declaring their anti-male bias and their belief that courts should discriminate against men, she should be removed from her position

>>112841
>The hilarious thing is you can't keep your anons straight.
>the hilarious thing is you thought I was the first newfag pretending not to be a newfag when really I'm a second newfag pretending not to be a newfag
wow anon yeah that is hilarious

Want to know how else I can tell you're a newfag? Because you still think being on an anonymous website is a novel concept, which means you haven't spent much time outside of /pol/ where at least you have ID tags

>>113075
I've never even been to /pol/. Ridiculing someone for taking all their ideas of what 4chan is from the subreddit devoted to it doesn't make anyone an idiot or a newfag. Finding 4chan through reddit or posting shit from it there is worth mocking, even if I agree with everything you just said about feminism.

Shot the stupid cunt

>>112712
Why are you posting here when you're a moron with an IQ so far into the negatives it took a team of mathematicians working on government grants 3 years to calculate it?

>>113120
Do you want to get V&? Because that's how you get V&.

>>109971
What kind of world do you live in where every single person does not experience violence first hand somewhat frequently and personally at least once in a while?

You said it yourself, most of these experiences are not due to sexism but some other reason or combination of reasons and it then gets blamed on sexism etc.

>>113153
>Why are you posting here when you're a moron with an IQ so far into the negatives it took a team of mathematicians working on government grants 3 years to calculate it?
What is going on with you people?

Its like the more you get called oit, the more you reveal your reddit faggotry.

Are you just trying to be annoying?

>>113165
What are you even on about? No one said anything about a society where no violence ever happened, it's just that MOST people don't expect to be exposed to serious violence.