Posts by boldwalker12

Andrew Mendoza10 said:They certainly aren't Catholics, but if Catholics don't fix a few things, they're in trouble. I recently met some Baptists from Canada, and one of them mentioned how churches—Catholic ones specifically—are sitting empty over there and in the States. For them, the real issue isn't even that women can't become priests.

Look at it this way—they’ve got much better entertainment. 😁
All those gospel bands and that whole "positive vibes" thing (I actually caught a performance by one of those groups lately) really helps dial down any potential extremism. And trust me, it exists, maybe even more so among Catholics than anyone else.

Ryan Wood98 said:That makes sense, though with the Church, it isn't really a question—everyone knows they can be quite closed-minded and regressive.

I wonder, is it possible for American feminists to advocate for equality while simultaneously practicing discrimination?

Hold up a second. By that logic, are American colleges discriminating too?
Look, I’m personally not about any kind of extremism, but I honestly don't see how Women's Colleges—if we assume they actually discriminate against the tiny handful of guys who might want to attend—impact any other part of the feminist movement. Are you seriously trying to say they lose the moral high ground to help women fleeing abuse just because they're exclusionary in one specific niche?

Andrew Mendoza10 said:I might be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure that in the USA, some denominations actually allow women to be ordained as priests.

Yeah, I think so, though you won't find that happening in the Catholic Church. Honestly, I don't have a huge dog in this fight when it comes to how things work in the States, but hey, good for them.

Bradley Taylor24 said:Should those very same organizations be spending their time demonizing the entire male gender every single day?🤷

Come on, don't be like that—give me something actual to work with! Lay some specifics on me so I can actually dig in.

Ryan Wood98 said:The whole situation surrounding feminism is quite interesting to me. While, in theory, feminism should advocate for true equality between men and women—which is a goal I support wholeheartedly—I can't help but feel that certain public figures who identify as feminists actually seem to be striving for inequality, specifically to favor women.

And I suppose inequality is fundamentally wrong.

For instance, the Catholic Church (as well as several other religious institutions) is frequently criticized for promoting gender inequality. However, one of the few non-religious educational programs in the US that actually practices gender discrimination during enrollment is "Women's studies." Essentially, a man is not permitted to enroll in "Women's studies."
So, rather than working to dismantle sexual discrimination, "Women's studies" actively perpetuates it.

I think this serves as a clear example of hypocrisy, suggesting that this isn't really about a "fight for equality," but is perhaps more about a struggle for as much power as possible.

Look, the hunger, or the drive 😁 for power is just part of being human. There isn't a single ideology out there that hasn't been twisted by it at some point. Personally, I see it like this: I don't pretend to be equal to everyone, I don't identify with everyone, and I'm definitely not "brothering" anyone based on sex or ideology. It doesn't even cross my mind to view every woman claiming to be a feminist as my "sister" in some shallow, mindless way, nor am I buying into those militant factions. But... a good chunk of what they're trying to achieve actually aligns with my worldview, and I think there are still a ton of inequalities out there that need fixing. We shouldn't just demonize their goals.
The Church is notorious for its divisions, but I don't find that particularly surprising. I know it's a pretty cliché example, but when the clergy is exclusively male, there really isn't much of a debate to be had there.

placidmarlin3 said:The blame lies squarely with both society and the media outlets that relentlessly push the image of women as nothing more than vapid objects or opportunists. They’ll argue, "But it sells papers!" I strongly disagree. If they actually chose to highlight women who have accomplished things through intellect, hard work, and genuine grit, we would see a shift in social consciousness within a generation or two. Society would actually progress by setting higher standards than just peddling raw sexuality. If we focused more on female heroes or the selfless mothers we see everywhere, the next generation of girls wouldn't look up to figures like Ava or others who manufacture overnight success by selling sex with minimal effort. Furthermore, boys wouldn't grow up idolizing a culture centered on "trophy" women or low-value archetypes; instead, they might actually seek out peers who are their equals.
The way things are now just creates a competitive environment built on incredibly shallow moral foundations.

Exactly. And honestly, the people in power—not just here in the States, but globally (though the mix of raw tribalism and Western trash culture hits a weirdly high peak here)—absolutely love it. You’ve got moms sending their daughters to get autographs from people like Simon Gotovac. It’s impossible to open a major American news portal without being bombarded by women who haven't actually accomplished anything in their lives besides taking off their clothes. There’s this one ridiculous example of a woman who’s actually quite smart, but hey, who cares? Who gives a damn about intelligence? Intelligence is just raw material you can either use or ignore. Sure, a Playboy bunny can be smart, but that doesn't change the fact that she took the easy way out.

Women who are actually building something meaningful don't even get media coverage. In fact, for a decent woman, appearing in those kinds of outlets is basically humiliating. One of our big magazines tried to make this "cool" move by running a series of articles and calendars featuring local female authors under some bombastic headline about how women write better. They clearly didn't realize how pathetic that actually looked. It's just a million sad examples of how women, whether they want to or not, are forced to compromise and play along.

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.

It was a rhetorical question.
Feminist groups aren't out here painting all dads as villains; they're just pointing out facts that everyone else would rather ignore. Look, it's obvious that any institution or organization is going to make mistakes. But what does that mean? Does it mean we have to demonize them at every single turn? Because that’s exactly what happens, day in and day out. It's honestly exhausting trying to argue within that framework—like, "Oh, why don't kids get assigned to men?" Well, let me break it down for you: it's because in a patriarchal society, the stereotype is that the mom is the caregiver while the dad is the provider, the authority figure, the one who brings home the paycheck and hands out the discipline. If you follow that outdated logic, it's not hard to see why mothers end up with custody. Feminism isn't about fighting for bad moms who abuse their kids while some caring father is blocked from seeing them—that's total bullshit. And why are domestic violence shelters filled with women instead of men? That's a different conversation entirely. Why are efforts to help women who have absolutely nobody to turn to—women who are literally struggling just to survive without being terrified for their lives—constantly being sabotaged? Why do we read about murdered women every single day and just treat it like it's normal? Why do something like, what is it, 60% of high school girls think it's okay if their partner hits them? Why, why... goddammit.

placidmarlin3 said:Exactly, and that’s precisely the point I was making in my original post—they aren't being overt because they don't dare voice their actual positions; they know such views are considered unacceptable (if not out of sheer self-preservation), assuming they haven't already realized just how dangerous those attitudes can be. On the flip side, women can be discriminated against through a million different channels, whether it's via the media or in everyday life by literally everyone—including those who claim to be "fighting" discrimination, simply because nobody has been taught to recognize when certain statements or actions are problematic, let alone developed an awareness of the systemic position of women in American society. If she’s a fool, she's the one 👍to blame, right?

Oh, absolutely. We’ve got this endless flood of these "stars" who only made it into the spotlight because of sheer luck and their looks, yet everyone gives them all the credit—completely ignoring the disgusting, sexist mindset of a society where women basically have to choose between two roles: being a gold digger or a housewife. Anything else is just a struggle to survive. It's not guaranteed for her like it is for men. Her successes get swept under the rug. They’re always pushed to the sidelines.
It's not like someone like Ava Karabatić is inherently flawed; it’s because of all those insecure losers running the media who embarrass us daily with their garbage news. It’s easy to slip into thinking some random woman might actually be responsible for a crime when the culture is this toxic. For instance, look at how people reacted recently when some wannabe celebrity had a tragic accident—half the comments were basically "good riddance to that slut." These people don't even realize how pathetic they are, or that they’re the exact clientele fueling this kind of trashy content day in and day out.
And don't even get me started on the current trend among frustrated young guys—if a girl isn't handing herself over, she's automatically labeled a "gold digger." 😁

Bradley Taylor24 said:Could we perhaps get links to those specific discussions? Also, could you clarify who exactly would want things to remain unchanged? That final sentence was somewhat difficult to parse.

There are certainly moments where the exaggeration is palpable. If the titles of these threads actually reflected reality, child custody during divorces would be distributed equally between fathers and mothers. In practice, however, the default assumption remains that the child stays with the mother, even in instances where it is blatantly obvious she wouldn't be the optimal caregiver.

On a related note, do women actually pay child support in cases where custody is granted to the fathers?

I honestly don't see how awarding custody to mothers clashes with patriarchy. It's pretty clear that a woman's primary role—and ideally her *only* one—is motherhood. They brainwash us with those "declining birth rate" headlines just to remind us where a woman belongs, which by extension dictates where children belong. Also, it was only super recently that we started actually punishing those deadbeat dads who refuse to pay support. Generally speaking, the amounts most guys shell out for their kids are straight-up pathetic. And it's equally shameful how they treat kids from previous relationships, to the point where an ex-partner often ends up becoming an ex-parent too. Honestly, I’m genuinely shocked whenever I run into a good, dedicated father who doesn't patronize his kid or neglect them—someone who can actually change a diaper and deal with a kid screaming in the middle of the night instead of just being some decorative figure sitting in front of the TV acting like a big authority. It sounds ridiculous, but I automatically give those guys a gold star. And it's sad, because that shouldn't be a "plus"; it should be the bare minimum. There are way more irresponsible fathers than there are irresponsible mothers.

In a country that actively pushes the idea of women as housewives and mothers, talking about specific child support amounts is kind of a joke, considering most women don't even leave their husbands because they lack the financial means to do so. When women apply for jobs, they're still judged based on their plans for a private life, potential pregnancies, and so on. They’re still facing an insane amount of sexism. And all those ideas about "safe houses" or escaping? Those don't exist because those institutions are mostly useless; women could leave if they wanted to, but they can't. It's not true. They simply don't have the money. Plus, men still get hired for responsible positions most of the time; if an employer has to choose between a man and a woman with identical qualifications, they’re picking the guy every single time.
Forget child support and all that nonsense; we aren't in Sweden. Women here are lucky if they even get decent maternity leave and a chance to actually return to work.

placidmarlin3 said:I don't think this is just some isolated issue found in specific PDF files or niche forums; rather, it’s a genuine reflection of how little the general public actually understands the precarious position women hold in America.
I have written about this many times, drawing parallels to similar dynamics elsewhere. We could spend all week debating how patriarchy and tradition fuel this environment—one where women often end up being their own worst enemies—but I'm sure there are plenty of people on this subforum more qualified than I am to dissect that. What I can offer, however, is my own perspective based on observing the world around us. In reality, women in the US face discrimination that extends far beyond the domestic sphere. People love to imply it’s just a "family matter," which is usually just a convenient way for them to dodge responsibility for the state of our society, where a staggering percentage of violent crimes involve domestic abuse against women. We all make a show of worrying about starving children in Africa or fighting for LGBTQ+ rights—heaven forbid you say the wrong thing there—yet so few are willing to admit we live in a culture that still views women as inferior or less capable. As mere sexual objects. I’m not quite sure how to articulate it, and I’d welcome some help, but I find the psychological makeup required to justify such things absolutely fascinating:

Take a woman being abused by her husband: instead of the community of men and women feeling a duty to report him, they scramble to manufacture excuses for the man, while either demonizing the woman or blaming her for her own predicament.

Or consider a rape survivor. A significant portion of people will instinctively assume she was asking for it or simply making it up. Even in discussions centered on survivors, you see a lot of participants casting doubt on whether certain accounts are even credible. It’s likely why we face a reality where for every single reported rape, there are fifteen others that go completely unreported.

Ultimately, it feels like people enjoy testing their moral compasses on issues that don't directly threaten them, perhaps because they lack any real awareness of what is actually happening. Or maybe performing this brand of enlightened virtue is just a charade to make themselves feel better. Tomorrow, there will be an uproar over a Black man being beaten, but the fact that in 2010, dozens of women were murdered, raped, harassed, or discriminated against in workplaces and schools across the country is treated as an afterthought. It goes so far that people actually argue, “Well, you have to understand, it’s just domestic violence.” What is that supposed to mean? If a woman is killed by her husband, is society not responsible? Is there no systemic influence at play? Is her death somehow less significant?

The topic you brought up, which ties directly into Politics Weekly, is another perfect example, given the variety of perspectives available from both men and women.

That’s just not how it works. People who discriminate against women are the exact same crowd pushing hate against the LGBTQ+ community, Black Americans, or anyone else who doesn't fit their narrow little worldview. And honestly? There are way more of them than you'd think. Not everyone is out there shouting their bigotry from the rooftops, either—sometimes you really have to read between the lines to see what they're actually thinking. It genuinely blows my mind how many people who act all "progressive" and "chill" on the surface are actually harboring these deep-seated sexist views the second you start digging. In my entire life, I’ve literally only met two guys who didn't have some major issue with feminism: one was gay, and the other was just... fine. That's it. That's the whole list. 😁 Most people operate on this "fine, whatever" logic—like, sure, they’ll accept some things, but man, they take it way too far. The absolute worst part is when they try to play the victim by claiming they’re being oppressed by actual marginalized groups. Or they start hitting you with those tired personal credentials: "Oh, I’m a great partner to my girlfriend," or "I have plenty of gay friends, Black friends, and Mexican friends, so I can't possibly be a bigot." It’s the same script every single time. Honestly, you can count the truly tolerant people on one hand. I bet a huge chunk of this intolerance is just fueled by how messed up everything feels right now. If we actually lived in a functional society, most people would probably lose their minds over all these different groups. Then again, if we hadn't spent the last 50 years aggressively pushing for equality, the situation for women today would be a total nightmare.

The nineties basically dragged us decades back into the dark ages, and now we’re seeing this weird "traditional values" revival that somehow always translates to domestic violence or people making excuses for it. So, they finally pass one decent, sane law, and half the men in the country start screaming like they're about to be sent to a mass lynch mob. Why? Look, every single law has loopholes and can be abused—that’s just how things work—but most of these guys are just losing their minds because someone is finally trying to end the Wild West era. I mean, honestly, who actually thinks a man should be allowed to lay hands on his wife in his own house? It's insane. Even in some parts of rural America today, you still hear people telling pregnant women, "Oh, just have a son." We're still stuck in a system where inheritance flows straight into male hands, and we're being governed by a bunch of chauvinists. There are advocates for this outdated sexism on every street corner, and heaven forbid anyone dares to point it out—you'll immediately get labeled as some sort of aggressive militant just for speaking the truth.

I recently hit a wall with some truly mind-blowing news: apparently, even when you’re dealing with an "educated intellectual," you still have to sit them down and explain—step by agonizing step—that feminism isn't some grand conspiracy to enslave men or establish a New World Order where we get to settle scores for centuries of historical baggage. But hey, I failed. Naturally, I’ve been branded a man-hater. It’s funny how activists are always dismissed as just a bunch of frustrated old ladies. And honestly? The loudest critics are often the women who swear feminism has done nothing but dump a pile of crap into their lives. They act like they were better off back in the day when they could just sit around and knit all day, but now they’re expected to crochet *and* hold down a career. They completely miss the point. It’s not feminism’s fault that they’re stuck in this awkward collision between the leftover scraps of the patriarchy and a movement trying to actually make progress—all while their husbands refuse to lift a finger for housework. No, blame feminism! Or better yet: "Who does she think she is, telling me how to run my own house?!" Yeah, sure. The irony is thick. These same women wouldn't dream of burning their college diplomas or quitting their jobs, yet they love to tear down the very movements trying to expand their horizons. Then you’ve got the ones who insist that a woman's worst enemy is just another woman. It's a circus, really.

Then you’ve got the people who think feminists look down on stay-at-home moms. They completely miss the point—it was actually those very same women who fought to make sure you have the actual freedom to choose. Whether you want to be a homemaker or an architect, that choice exists because of them. Most people just don't get it. Honestly, it would be such a relief if this was just some uneducated minority, but it's definitely not. I could probably count on one hand the number of people who wouldn't absolutely lose their minds at me for saying this right now.

Andrew Mendoza10 said:Look, there was definitely a time when fighting for women's rights was necessary. That mission was accomplished—and honestly, the more useless those movements become, 🤷 the better. No amount of activism from any feminist is going to change the minds of a few stubborn, small-town folks. Maybe I just have a skewed perception of feminism, but I can't help blaming Vedrana Rudan for that; she acts as their unofficial spokesperson. If she’s the standard-bearer, then my reaction whenever I encounter a feminist will be 🙂. Let me be clear: I have nothing against independent women, nor do I believe a woman should just sit at home waiting for her husband to return from hunting bears 🤣

Ugh, I was actually going to bring up Joan Didion, but I bit my tongue. She isn't some damn mascot for the entire feminist movement! 😁
Most feminists are just regular people. For the most part. 😁

Andrew Mendoza10 said:People are just animals—regardless of gender. Radical feminists are nothing more than fascists, and frankly, I couldn't care less about some narrow-minded, old-school traditionalist who thinks a woman’s place is strictly in the kitchen—someone who expects her to just shut up, cook, obsess over having a son, and treat her daughter like a plague. It’s all the same garbage, really. Extremism is always bad, no matter which side you're looking at.

Oh, absolutely. Apparently, everyone who ever fought for anything on this planet is a fascist now. It’s easy to sit here and type away comfortably while forgetting that most of the rights we enjoy today were won by people who would probably be labeled with whatever insulting term is trending this week. Real classy. By the way, if it weren't for feminists, there'd be way more women out there treating their daughters like a plague—and let's be real, there are still plenty of them today thanks to some truly nauseating "tradition." But sure, they're all fascists, obviously. Honestly, I've started losing interest in debates like this because so many people I usually consider sane totally trip over themselves during these arguments. Some people are just choosing to be deaf and blind, and others... well, they're just plain uneducated.

Steven Johnson3 said:Both. But this discussion is strictly about men at risk.

Seriously, how many of them are there? Are there even enough to fill up one tiny room in a halfway house? I highly doubt it. ☕

Steven Johnson3 said:It started with the major news networks, but now it has spilled over onto Politics too.

So, why would you even bother going there? 😁
Honestly, I’ve never even considered hanging out over at Politics because the crowd there is so predictable—especially when you dive into the "on the edge of politics" subforums. And Reddit? Forget about it. It’s almost impossible to have a decent, high-level conversation with that lot. In this country, aggressive chauvinism is basically a daily occurrence; it’s just gotten a little more subtle over the years. Most people are just venting their frustrations, so it’s way easier to lean on lazy stereotypes than to actually sit down and use your brain.

dustywalker said:Fine, look, it’s obvious that tact is preferred when criticizing. It dictates how a person will handle the feedback.
But what I was actually interested in is the perspective of the person receiving the critique—someone who is already an adult. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about the delivery method.
So, I'm an adult. I did something that I personally felt good about. To avoid talking in circles: I wrote a poem 😁
I let someone read it, nothing serious. That person tells me: "Sorry, but this poem is garbage. My grandmother could write better than this."
Well... after a comment like that, I’m going to walk away thinking that person is an arrogant jerk, a sadist, or an idiot. BUT I AMN'T GOING TO THINK MY POEM IS FANTASTIC OR ASSUME THEY SAID IT OUT OF JEALOUSY OR BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST IN A BAD MOOD. The real issue is that people struggle to accept that someone else's work might actually be bad. That's the part I'm looking at. I suspect that even vain people would take a critique like: "I'm not really feeling this poem... it's not bad, per se, I just prefer other styles, it's not my thing."

I suppose I've trivialized and exaggerated the scenario a bit. I just prefer debating things that feel tangible....

Well, it really depends on what kind of criticism we're talking about. When it comes to creative work, it's a super slippery slope, and it's worlds apart from just trashing someone's haircut or their physical appearance. However, from what I've noticed, the absolute worst artists or writers are often the ones who struggle most with feedback—they basically refuse to believe any of it. Maybe it's because talent and a bit of insecurity are weirdly intertwined; someone with actual talent wants to level up, whereas these types are perfectly content where they are and won't let anyone challenge them.

There’s also a huge difference between asking for an opinion and getting one you didn't solicit. And then there's the delivery. I’ve never bought into those people who brag about how "brutally honest" and "direct" they are, while simultaneously using every opportunity to suck up to people. That is peak hypocrisy. Usually, it's rooted in jealousy. A person who trashes everything around them—even when everyone else seems objectively less talented or less skilled than they are—is just a miserable, frustrated person who's likely acting out of envy. You can easily tell the difference between genuine criticism and something malicious. You just need a shred of intuition and common sense.

Steven Johnson3 said:It seems like a bunch of threads have been sparked lately, all centered around these PDFs that basically categorize women as nothing but trash. It looks like being female is being treated as the ultimate misfortune. I suppose that’s why so many people celebrate when they find out they’re having a son. Honestly, this whole mess probably traces back to Adam. But why such sweeping generalizations? Does this criticism apply to older generations, or just the younger ones? Is it meant to be universal? Should I feel ashamed simply because I am a woman? And why are feminists constantly being belittled? Would these critics actually prefer if things hadn't changed—if women were still stuck at home without any rights at all?

Wait, what PDFs are we even talking about here? 🤔

Benjamin King2 said:What’s the file extension on that movie? It’s those three little letters after the dot in the filename (like movie_title.avi). And what does a torrent have to do with a zip or rar file?

The extension is avi. And look, there *is* a connection because whenever I grab stuff online, it automatically bundles itself into a WinRAR archive. But here's the kicker: even after I uninstalled WinRAR, the file still won't open. Every time I try to save it, I just get this blank white icon that nothing can launch—it literally just says "invalid file." Just to be clear, this isn't a one-off thing; it happens with every single movie I try to download.

Noah Sanchez39 said:What unknown person? 🤷

I honestly have no clue how I'm supposed to describe 😁, it's like that little white icon with the twisted "ear" thing and some kind of browser image inside it. I know, I know, I sound like a total idiot. It's just... I don't really get 🙈

Noah Sanchez39 said:Just ditch WinZip 🙂and go for it.
I've been rocking 7-Zip for ages now, and honestly, it’s totally fine. 👍

Heh, well, I actually did uninstall it. So I grabbed that 7-Zip thing, but even now—like, right when I'm downloading movies—it won't save them in a usable format. It just saves them as this completely unrecognizable junk and then spits out an "invalid file" error. I tried manually picking which program to use to save the files, but it’s still acting up. Before I messed with WinZip, my movie downloads would just automatically link up with BitTorrent—you know, that little green icon would show up next to them. Now? Everything is just a total mess. 🙄

So, I’m having a bit of a headache with WinZip. The license expired on me because the tech guy who set up my rig just installed some trial version instead of the real deal.
Basically, it still opens most stuff just fine, but whenever I try to download a movie, I get hit with this error: this archive is either in unknown format or damaged. Honestly, at this point, the software is doing more harm than good. Should I just scrap it and uninstall the thing entirely, or what do you guys think?