Posts by goldenranger5

12 posts shown.

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 27, 2010

Drew Lee7 said:Quentin Tarantino:
boldwalker12 I can't even begin to process what they just said. Seriously? Is anyone actually buying this? It’s like people just stop thinking the second they open their mouths. Honestly, how does someone even come up with this kind of nonsense?
Man, I could've saved myself all that wasted effort if I’d just read this a second sooner. I can't believe I have to deal with this again. Honestly, does anyone else feel like we’re just circling the drain here? Every time someone brings up these "traditional values" arguments, it feels like a step backward. We've been talking about how patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, but people still act like it's some kind of lost utopia. It isn't. It's just outdated. Why are we even entertaining these regressive ideas in a modern society? It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck. We should be pushing for progress, not clinging to old-school power structures that clearly don't serve everyone. Does anyone actually think things were better when one group held all the cards? I highly doubt it.
Come on, don't stoop that low. So what if he was out chasing skirts? What does that have to do with the actual points he's making? Should I start digging up everyone else's dirty laundry and dragging their private lives into this? Would that be any fun? I don't think so.

Look, if you aren't actually reading what I write, then you really have no business commenting on it. You’re basically admitting you haven't even read my posts, yet you still feel this desperate need to come at me? Honestly, I'm sorry for whatever happened in your life that made you this bitter, but sorry, babe—that's not on me. 🤷 I didn't screw you over. Seriously. ☕

Look, you’re wasting your breath. It’s like trying to say good morning to someone who’s stone-deaf. Honestly, the motivation behind most feminists—and I use that term loosely—is purely personal. That’s exactly why they get so aggressive and why they always act like they're being victimized. I’m with you on pretty much everything, except for the whole divorce situation. That is a massive, incredibly messy issue. There isn't a perfect solution out there, period. At best, you're just looking for the least terrible option available. Is there discrimination involved? Sure, in a way. But I don't think the courts are out to get anyone intentionally; it feels more like they're just taking the path of least resistance. It’s a complicated mess, but regarding everything else? Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Let’s be real here... most women act completely un-feminist. And that’s exactly what drives feminists absolutely insane. They go off on these massive rants, blaming thousands of years of tradition like those women are just mindless robots without a single thought of their own. As if they aren't capable of using their own heads—no matter how smart or cunning those heads might actually be.

So, you're actually trying to tell me that there's zero choice left for women today? Give me a break. How "free" he really is—that's a whole different ballgame, and honestly, I think it's more of a philosophical debate than anything else. But seriously, what exactly am I missing here? In what way do women lack choice in this day and age?

Who was attacking whom?

I was merely responding to the portions I actually read. If I didn't have the right to comment—rather than just the right to respond—you would be in a position to counter my points with actual arguments (that is, defeating my logic as effectively as I defeat yours; that isn't "attacking"). Instead, you simply drift from one response to another, resorting to these pathetic, baseless personal insults.

First, I was obsessed with you, and now it has shifted to me supposedly attacking you or even blaming you for things that happened to me. I am genuinely curious to see what other nonsense you'll pull out of your hat next. But shall we return to the matter of logical argumentation?

By the way, what exactly "happened" to me? You seem to possess far more insight into my life than I do, given that I have no complaints. Is this perhaps projection? (That psychological defense mechanism where an individual subconsciously refuses to acknowledge their own traits, thoughts, or emotions by attributing them to others).

I don't have issues in my relationships with the opposite sex; quite the contrary, 😍 my issue lies with a system that strikes me as fundamentally unfair.

There are, believe it or not, people who do not base their entire worldview solely on personal experience, and whose sense of morality isn't reduced to whatever happens to be personally convenient.

Ryan Wood98 said:Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender, according to Wikipedia.

I suppose I don't see why I should exclude that idea, given that it seems to be a factual reality. 🤷 It appears in several posts within this debate, and I think it stems from the premise that we live in a patriarchal society—that is, a society managed by men, which would imply that those same men are responsible for the flaws inherent in that society.

"Primary" does not mean "absolute." I fail to see why this definition doesn't apply to the current reality (in practice, not just in theory). If a single (1) situation arises where men lose control—one that certainly doesn't benefit all women, but only women in very specific circumstances—and we immediately declare patriarchy dismantled? In three-quarters of the country, what are we doing? Just celebrating?

Ryan Wood98 said:Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender, according to Wikipedia.

I suppose I don't see why I should exclude that idea, given that it seems to be a factual reality. 🤷 It appears in several posts within this debate, and I think it stems from the premise that we live in a patriarchal society—that is, a society managed by men, which would imply that those same men are responsible for the flaws inherent in that society.

As for what can be gleaned from various posts, that remains debatable. When it comes to societal conditions, responsibility lies with everyone who lives within it and possesses any influence greater than zero. In a democracy, that means anyone with the right to vote. That certainly doesn't exclude women.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 26, 2010

Ryan Wood98 said:So, I suppose this is an instance of a woman who does NOT actually want gender equality.

Perhaps she wants all the same rights and opportunities that men have, but she also wants to retain all those extra advantages that come from the current "unequal" status quo.

It is something a previous commenter touched upon—it seems to be part of human nature to crave as much power as possible. Not necessarily equal power, but just... more.

A completely different question regarding feminism could be raised here: do feminists even have a legitimate right to represent the interests of the entire female population?

Can feminists advocate for equality on behalf of women (assuming for a moment that they truly are advocating for equality) if most women DO NOT want equality? What if they prefer a "Prince Charming" type who opens doors for them, provides for them, and comes home saying, "Honey, I'm home," while they live out the life of a housewife from an American TV sitcom?

Do we actually have any data that would allow us to claim we know what the female population wants, and are feminists truly representing those desires?

True. The system is teeming with brainwashed individuals. But the question remains: should we judge a system's effectiveness by how successful it is at laundering minds?

A second instance: even though inheritance laws are technically egalitarian, it is more common than not that women waive* their inheritance in favor of male relatives.

* "Voluntarily." Because that’s what one does. Because that’s how things are handled. Because it's the custom. Because it is the only socially acceptable way to behave.

We exist within a framework that is equal in theory, yet profoundly unequal in practice.

And no, I am not a victim of this system. I possess the resources necessary to manipulate it to my advantage. That doesn't mean I am oblivious to the fact that these resources aren't available to everyone—that mine were merely a stroke of luck regarding my birth—nor am I unaware that manipulating the system is simultaneously an act of conforming to it, which inevitably chips away at one's sense of human integrity.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 26, 2010

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
I find myself unable to concur with this.

I am glad this was put into writing. It clearly illustrates exactly what fuels the backlash against feminism.

In theory, the fight for equality sounds noble enough. In practice, however, we are faced with two distinct phenomena:

It’s hard to ignore the blatant bias against men during divorce proceedings. It feels less like a pursuit of justice and more like a rigged game where the deck is stacked from the start.
There is a certain tendency among some women to link everything—even the most nonsensical grievances—to the concept of patriarchy. If an action is directed at men, they immediately frame it as a systemic issue. They present themselves as victims of a discrimination that simply doesn't exist.

One. A textbook example of blatant discrimination against men. I’m not disputing that it exists, but in my earlier posts, I laid out exactly why this happens—specifically regarding the elevated role of motherhood within our mainstream culture, which serves as a direct byproduct of the influence exerted by the dominant religion here in America.

Ryan Wood98 said:I'm afraid I can't agree with that.

However, I am glad this was brought up, because I think the argument itself illustrates exactly why there is such an aversion toward feminism.

In theory, the struggle for equality sounds wonderful. But in practice, I think we see two distinct trends:

- The clear discrimination men face during divorce proceedings.
- A tendency among certain women to link everything—even things that have nothing to do with it—to the patriarchy, simply because those issues are directed at men, thereby portraying themselves as victims of a non-existent discrimination.

To be clear, I agree that there are many situations in our society where women are disadvantaged, and those are issues worth fighting against. However, I think what causes people to turn away from feminism are all those OTHER instances where people protest against things that have no actual connection to discrimination or the patriarchy. It's somewhat like the story of the boy who cried wolf.

How am I supposed to take an organization seriously when they view a case like Cyclops vs. Nives Celzijus as gender discrimination? Or when someone blames the patriarchy for the fact that men are often placed at a disadvantage by default during divorce settlements?

By definition, a patriarchy implies Male Power, or greater rights for men over women. Therefore, in a truly patriarchal society, a woman would have no chance at all in a dispute against a man regarding child custody.

We could certainly discuss the stereotyping of gender roles in society, which is amplified by the media and the education system, but I don't think we can call that patriarchy, nor can we attribute that stereotyping to men. In fact, given how much women represent the educational system, perhaps—if anything—that responsibility might actually lie with those women.

That "series of events" can be broken down into a vast number of what others might call "obvious cases of gender discrimination." These instances will undoubtedly be... More than one.Their attempt to downplay everything by pointing to that one single outlier is, predictably, driven by what our mainstream culture still insists is a woman's primary—if not only—purpose. You simply cannot reconcile the claim that "discrimination doesn't exist" with the sheer volume of actual incidents reported. What are those incidents supposed to be? Mere coincidences?

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
Patriarchy inherently relies on Male Power, granting men significantly more leverage than women. In such a society, if a man and a woman find themselves at odds over child custody, the woman stands virtually no chance.

Let’s start by reviewing the definition of patriarchy. If we intend to have a serious discussion, we should probably agree beforehand on which sources we're actually going to consider relevant.

Ryan Wood98 The user states:
We could certainly discuss the way gender roles are stereotyped within our society—how they are reinforced by both the media and the public school system—but I refuse to label this phenomenon as "patriarchy," nor will I pin the blame on men. In fact, given that women make up the vast majority of the workforce in our education system, if anyone is responsible for perpetuating these stereotypes, it would arguably be those women.

The version of ourselves we eventually become as adults is essentially a byproduct of this stereotyping. It triggers various behavioral patterns across both genders. But where does this stereotyping actually originate? Isn't it precisely the very thing we claim to be fighting against—even if we tackle it through various, sometimes rather absurd methods under the guise that any publicity is good publicity?

For the sake of further discussion, I ask that we move past the notion of "attributing" behavior to men or holding them responsible for these systemic issues.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 26, 2010

Green Man says:
I’ll say it again: you haven't earned my mockery. But Miss goldenranger5 certainly has. Initially, I assumed she just struggled with comprehension, but... she actually admitted there’s some secret connection binding us together. It seems it isn't a lack of intellect, but rather a personal vendetta against me. That is her burden to carry, not mine.

Is that so? 😂 My level of obsession with you is truly staggering—mostly because (by some miracle, I can actually recall things from last week, which is quite an achievement...) your reaction to someone refusing to entertain your "facts" was particularly amusing. It stands in stark contrast to your previous little episode where you attempted to overdose on vomiting emojis as a substitute for actual argumentation.

A secret connection... (cue the fanfare)... is simply this: when one possesses a memory capacity slightly larger than that of a goldfish, one can actually retain a few names. It saves the trouble of reading every single word surrounding them. One might say you are secretly connected to many people through your various outbursts, and I would be more than happy to re-establish that connection once you realize that quoting me is fundamentally bad for your health.

There isn't a single reputable source in existence that would claim we live in a matriarchy. However, of course, if the facts don't fit the narrative, one simply declares the existing sources inadequate because they don't align with certain fantasies. Then, those fantasies expand to include the idea that such sources will exist in the future. Perfectly logical.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 25, 2010

Drew Lee7 said:Are you seriously telling me you don't get that patriarchy isn't some monolith?! Hahaha, give me a break...

...I mean, what exactly have I been preaching about all this time? Man, you really cracked me up. 😂 😂 😂

You know, when people get too worked up, they start hallucinating that anyone else is actually listening or responding.

But here’s the kicker: most women don't even have a problem with the patriarchy, as long as the guy running the show treats them right. That's why feminists lose their minds—because the vast majority of women aren't even bothered by it. Don't go thinking I'm celebrating this, though. Not at all...

Granted. It applies to all of them. But then again, aren't those cultures supposed to be non-homogeneous?

You'd probably need an entire Oracle database just to maintain the connection to all your "arguments."

To be honest, I can't quite reach that level of "intensity" required to read everything you scribble here. Generally, I skip over you in every thread; I'm only present as long as you aren't quoting me too vividly. Even so, you provide plenty of material for a comedy routine.

And as for what most women enjoy... well, you're certainly an expert on that too. 🤣

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 25, 2010

Please, it’s just a shortage of decent emojis during the weekends 🙂

You simply don't grasp temporal categories regarding the historical presence of matriarchy. You fail to see that patriarchy isn't some monolithic entity; it manifests differently depending on the dominant religion or culture. To you, no source is reliable unless it happens to align perfectly with your own views, yet you insist on debating... facts? It’s a shame my doctor has forbidden me from laughing too much lately.

Your one advantage—which is massive, truly massive—is your sheer persistence, your relentlessness, and your staggering surplus of free time. I have to hand it to this lady for enduring this for so long. Just wait until I find a tablecloth and stretch it out into a flag.

Though, if anyone is qualified to write about blaming others for their own miserable situation, you are certainly the right person for the job. Go ahead, let it rip.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 25, 2010

Drew Lee7 said:I don't see it that way at all. In a true patriarchal setup, a woman's primary role is motherhood, but that only works if the man is actually present in the picture. Under that system, divorce basically doesn't exist—there’s no real option for a woman to just walk away from her man. Instead, the power dynamic allows him to essentially cast her out while keeping full custody of the child. So... honestly? I think you're completely off base here.

Do you even know what separation anxiety in toddlers actually is? Clearly, you don't, which explains why you're posting such absolute garbage.

Quote : Baby blues

You mean contradiction, right? 🤷

So, you're really trying to base your entire argument on a single quote? What exactly are you trying to prove there? 😂

Sorry if I'm laughing, but I honestly can't help it. I actually wrote out this whole long-winded response to you, but then the entire thing just vanished into thin air. You took an Aristotelian quote, ripped it straight out of context, and now you're waving it around like it's some kind of smoking gun to prove how women are being oppressed. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. 🤣

My point was that every single case needs to be judged based on actual facts, not just out of reflex. I suppose it goes without saying that one should consider the child's age—would you demand a toddler produce a technical blueprint, or perhaps ask them to color within the lines?

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 24, 2010

Steven Johnson3 said:It looks like you didn't read my post.

I did read it, but I’m struggling to see how that connects to what I actually said. I’m not disputing the fact that children are often handed to mothers at the expense of fathers simply because they are mothers—regardless of their individual circumstances.

My issue is with treating this trend as some sort of massive win for women. Not every woman fits the mold of "divorced mother," for instance. Some are grandmothers, some are aunts, and some were once those very children themselves.

This isn't a victory for anyone. Legal disputes should be settled based on the specific facts of a case, not just following "standard practice." And let's be clear: this isn't a triumph of the feminist movement. It is, rather, a byproduct of a patriarchal view regarding maternal roles combined with systemic inertia and indifference. Is that clearer? I have a nagging feeling I'm repeating myself, and if I start quoting my own previous posts, we'll have a real problem.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 24, 2010

silentpilot6 said:Then why aren't kids assigned to "fathers" instead of just "men"? Do you notice the difference there?

I personally know of a case where custody was granted to a mother who was unemployed and struggling with mental health issues... so tell me again how she is "more qualified" than the father, who is steadily employed, mentally sound, and fought to have the children. 🤷

You missed the point entirely. If we completely removed women from the equation, yes, biological fathers would likely be prioritized over any other male relative or non-biological father regardless of their circumstances—but that’s not what we are debating, is it?

We are discussing why custody is assigned to mothers rather than fathers. Again, it comes down to the glorification of the maternal ROLE.

Not that I am claiming that is any better than the glorification of the paternal role (take, for instance, certain societies structured under Sharia law).

Quite the opposite; I am not asserting that someone's role—which is often just a collection of circumstances—makes them inherently qualified for anything, or more qualified than anyone else.

Simply put, suggesting that this twisted manifestation of patriarchal thought (heavily influenced by dominant religious structures) serves as proof that women aren't facing discrimination is illogical.

Women are more than just mothers. Once again, the distinction is glaringly obvious.

If you lived in a world that signaled your second-class citizenship through thousands of minor and major ways every single day, but kept insisting that AS LONG AS you eventually have kids and AS LONG AS you get divorced, things might somehow turn out rosy, it wouldn't seem quite so subtle.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 24, 2010

silentpilot6 said:Let's be clear... in my eyes, a man who fails to pay child support isn't a man at all; he's just a loser and a jerk... regardless of whether he was married to the mother or it was just a one-night stand.
Child support is the bare minimum you can do... though on the other hand, it is true that women are, by default, assigned the children.
A mother could be unemployed or struggling with addiction, yet she is still the one the child goes to. 🤷

It isn't about "women," it's about "mothers." Do you catch that subtle distinction?

To be even more precise: "biological mothers."

If I am a grandmother, an aunt, a sister, or a foster parent... I am still a woman, but will I receive preferential treatment during a custody hearing in those roles? Not a chance.

The issue isn't the gender of the people involved, but rather the role they occupy. The system recognizes us as women through a single lens—and it views us disproportionately through that one specific role, using it as a convenient excuse for everything else.

→ go to post

Megathread: PNNK & ŽNKT (Warning: 18+) - The psychology and impact of profanity among Americans in Psychology · Dec 24, 2010

Roger Walker4 As stated by:
An occasional night owl session can actually be quite therapeutic for clearing the head, provided you don't overdo it. Sometimes, a little late-night solitude is exactly what the doctor ordered to stay sane. Honestly, though, everyone just needs to get lost.😍

Trigonometry is the bedrock of decency.

Whenever you feel the urge to say "Goddammit," just say "three." π Quarters.

→ go to post

Women are villains, men are saints in Psychology · Dec 23, 2010

Bradley Taylor24 said:Is the quoted sentence intended to be a statement or a question? 😕

The core issue here is that certain feminist organizations consistently paint fathers in a negative light, pushing for maternal custody as a default. They often do this even when it is clearly detrimental to the child's best interests.

My point is that having a noble cause doesn't grant these feminist groups immunity from making mistakes. Everyone who takes action is prone to error, whether they choose to admit it or not.

You present yourself as an exceptionally brilliant creature. However, you are conflating social services and the courts—which are parts of the institutional system—with feminist organizations, which belong to civil society (where their actual influence on the system remains questionable).

In that sense, my interlocutors are correct: we live within a patriarchal system. It views a woman primarily through the lens of motherhood; consequently, the system struggles to grasp the concept of a "non-mother."

It stands to reason that in an ideal world, the system would make decisions based on arguments in INDIVIDUAL CASES. But do you truly believe the drones that populate our bureaucracy are capable of such nuance? They operate on habit. They may mimic the application of rules, but they essentially function via a formula. In this regard, they are accustomed to the notion that men are, in fewer instances, interested in caregiving. Dealing with exceptions is simply extra work for them.

Nevertheless, this phenomenon isn't evidence of women being non-discriminated against or men being discriminated against; rather, it is merely one of the many distorted manifestations of an inherently patriarchal system.

→ go to post