Posts by Drew Lee7

Jeffrey Rivera2 said:Then explain to me why we are constantly hearing about being "threatened" when we aren't the ones in danger—it is clearly you who are.

Oh, wow, looks like someone's making clones now. 😉

Since we're in the psychology section, I assume you've at least heard of projection. It's this fascinating little trick where the human brain convinces itself that it isn't responsible for anything, so it just points the finger at someone else instead. Yeah. Exactly.

I just wanted to point out that you really went for the low blow there. Seriously. So what if he admitted to being out with some hookers? What does that have to do with anything we're actually discussing here? You acted like you could have saved yourself the breath of replying if you’d just read that part. Like he isn't even a human being. Like he doesn't even deserve the time of day from you. My point was that he could easily turn around and do the exact same thing to you, which would be totally pointless. And let's be real—this stuff affects you, me, and mnogi everyone else, even when we claim it doesn't. We don't live in a vacuum, after all.

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 It isn't. It's just outdated.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.

goldenranger5 said:

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.

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. ☕

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.

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.

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?

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.

slymaker9 said:Exactly. She doesn't want equality, and most tragically, she isn't even aware of it. By acting this way, she actively sustains the fraternal patriarchy, which is precisely what I told her at the time.
She envies men while simultaneously demanding that they respect certain "female" privileges. There is a massive amount of cognitive dissonance at play here.
It likely stems from a deep-seated desire for power. She wants both "female" and "male" advantages. She wants everything.

Feminists advocate for the right to free choice, and that is why they don't need external legitimacy. You only need legitimacy when you are standing against something.

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?

First off, my bad, wiredmoose3 for being caught in the crossfire of this fight between me and—let's be honest—some of the other women here, rather than you specifically. So, sorry about that, Baby.

I actually wrote you a massive response, but the ether just swallowed it whole. I honestly didn't have the energy to deal with the tech issues again. Long story short: if we're talking about the status of any individual—man or woman—within a society, we're talking about every single social dimension. And when I say "every," I don't just mean the public or political stuff, but the private side too. You can't draw conclusions about the nature of society in ancient Greece based on a single quote ripped out of context. As a counterpoint, look at the Feast, where it mentions that Aristotle's teacher was a woman. But the Feast itself is a work that pretty much glorifies pederasty and carries some slightly misogynistic undertones. So how are we supposed to reconcile those two things? Things are always way more complicated than they look on the surface. Historically, we have a decent idea of when and how patriarchy emerged: iron, warriors, cavalry, nomads—those are the links. The ancient Greeks were linguistically Indo-European (so, again, iron, warriors, cavalry, nomads) who migrated to the Greek peninsula in several waves. Of course, they didn't just land on empty soil; they either assimilated parts of the local population or enslaved them. The existing cultures were agrarian with strong matriarchal traits (you can see it in the myths). That’s just one slice of the complex Greek story, especially when you factor in the influence from the East.

I'll say it again: you didn't deserve to be mocked. But goldenranger5 definitely does. At first, I just thought she was having a hard time wrapping her head around things, but... she actually admitted there's some weird, secret connection between us. Turns out it's just her being stuck up about me, which isn't my problem, it's hers.

And boldwalker12 decided to use two philosophers as examples who are famously misogynistic. I actually like them quite a bit, though both had incredibly tragic lives—not just because Schopenhauer was depressed and academically sidelined, and Nietzsche suffered and died from progressive paralysis (which is both physical and mental), but because both were also total failures in love.

Honestly, how many misogynistic and misandrist statements can you find on this forum alone? Hundreds upon hundreds. And then what? Some future historian could pick and choose a few of them and use them to claim we live in a patriarchy or a matriarchy.

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...

Yeah, true... facts are hard to pin down. Honestly, you might as well just stay in your own lane because who knows what’s waiting for you out there? Even if the facts are on your side, those people at the top will just move the goalposts anyway.

...besides, if every single guy—or at least most of them—is just some hardcore patriarchal chauvinist, then it makes it way easier to justify the whole mess, doesn't it? 😉

boldwalker12 said:Look, I'm talking about the leftovers of patriarchy. It's not like we're living in the dark ages where a woman isn't allowed to leave a man anymore.

Ugh, well, at least you've got plenty of quotes to work with—just maybe try looking at some other philosophers for once? It's a little hard to claim something is "out of context" when you're cherry-picking everything. 😁

"But once the laws granted women the same rights as men, they should have also been granted human reason."
"Just a glance at a woman's stature tells us she is not destined for great intellectual or physical feats. She does not prove herself through what she accomplishes, but through what she endures: the pains of childbirth, the care of children, and her submissiveness to the man she must patiently accompany. Her greatest pains, joys, and displays of strength are denied to her; her life should flow more quietly, more insignificantly, and more weakly than a man's, and generally shouldn't be any happier or more miserable than his." A. Schopenhauer.

"Woman is a riddle whose solution is motherhood."
"Women who educate themselves probably do so because their sexual apparatus doesn't work." Nietzsche

And there's a million more examples like that.

Honestly, I have no clue where you're getting this idea that those are "remnants of the patriarchy." That's actually incomprehensible to a patriarchy. In those systems, the option for a woman to even think about leaving a man—let alone raising a child on her own—doesn't even exist. They're completely marginalized. Do you even realize what happens to women in those types of cultures, or what's left of them, if they actually try? There have been news stories right here in the States where, for example, an American woman marries an Arab man, they divorce, and he just kidnaps the kid and vanishes. And before anyone tries to call me a chauvinist, that isn't just some specific trait of an Arab man; it’s a feature of all patriarchal cultures.
You can't claim something is a "remnant" of a system if that thing was fundamentally impossible within that culture to begin with.

The whole "glorification" of motherhood? If anything, that’s a hallmark of a matriarchy.

And regarding those quotes... what exactly do you think you've proven with them? Seriously though, I’m asking you—what was the point?

boldwalker12 said:It’s precisely because society still views the mom as the primary caregiver while the dad gets more freedom and way fewer responsibilities. Like I said before, we're just dealing with the leftovers of old-school patriarchal norms.

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.

goldenranger5 said: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.

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

wiredmoose3 said:Do you notice the glaring contradiction here?

Well, it can be. For instance, look at what Aristotle wrote:
"Just as a sickly parent sometimes produces sickly children, and sometimes produces healthy ones, so too from a female body, sometimes a female is born, and sometimes a male. A woman is like a debilitated man; her monthly menses is merely seed, but an impure seed. This seed lacks one thing—the source of life—which resides solely within the male seed."

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. 🤣

Look, I’d be an idiot if I claimed discrimination doesn't exist in today's world. It's really just a question of where you're looking. For a huge chunk of American history leading up to the mid-1900s, most of the country was struggling way more than people realize. We're talking about places like Appalachia, the rural coastlines, or even parts of Canada where people migrated from; basically, these were incredibly impoverished farming communities that have been through absolute hell historically. The only area that was somewhat better off—and god help us, this was actually more progressive toward women—was the Midwest. That’s the point I’m making. You can't take a region where people are barely scraping by, shaped by constant historical trauma, and use it to draw sweeping conclusions about everyone. Besides, those were mostly shepherd communities. Nomadic, basically. It’s common knowledge in history and ethnology that there's a massive distinction between nomadic and agrarian societies, where the former tended to be strictly patriarchal in the modern sense, while the latter weren't. Sure, authoritative patriarchy existed, and it still does, but it hasn't been the universal standard everywhere, despite how some people try to paint it. It’s just a byproduct of specific historical and social circumstances.

boldwalker12 said:Look, sure, you can have one woman venting that all guys are jerks—that happens on an individual level. But that’s not feminism. Do you actually know how or why the fight for equality even started? Do you have any clue what life was actually like for women before the movement kicked off?

Historically and sociologically speaking, modern feminism really found its footing alongside the Industrial Revolution. Once women started heading into factories and moving from small-scale manufacturing to assembly lines, the whole traditional setup just broke. That old-school division of labor basically became obsolete overnight.

So, the movements were definitely there, picking up steam in the late 19th century and especially during the first third of the 20th century—think about the suffragettes here in the United States.

And honestly, how would you even split the chores in a traditional rural community? Should the guy be rocking the baby and making lunch while the women are out mowing hay or chopping wood?

Look, I'm obviously not saying things have to stay that way today. In fact, I wouldn't want my wife stuck in the kitchen all day. 😂

And where exactly did I mention punishment? 😕

I'm against almost any kind of punishing kids. Whether it's physical or psychological, I'm not a fan. But again, that has zero to do with authority.

I honestly think this kind of literature is just trash and lacks any real substance.

Look, I feel like there could be plenty of middle ground here, even if they don't end up agreeing on everything. But hey, whatever...

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against feminists, but when someone calls something "unacceptable" and it isn't actual violence—just a different opinion or viewpoint—it basically proves my point: it implies that person feels primitive or backward just for thinking that way. And it’s not just talk anymore; we're seeing more and more legal stuff (or at least proposals that border on being totally absurd) popping up. One example is how you could practically end up behind bars just for sending a suggestive message. 🙄

The right to choose? Sure, absolutely. But look at how things actually work today. Does every woman really have that choice in practice? Let's say she wants to be both a scientist and a mother. She has to grind through undergrad, then grad school, then her PhD, all while fighting to keep her job... if she decides to have kids, she simply isn't playing on the same level as a woman who chooses not to.

wiredmoose3 said:Care to define "functioning"? Because by my standards—which may be skewed, I admit—those three examples were anything but normal.

If you don't mind me asking—and I genuinely am curious here—what exactly is your connection to this?

Let's swap out the word "normal." The real issue is that they're just using terrible methodology. I've looked at dozens of papers like this in my time. I've read them. Their basic goal isn't even to study a phenomenon and draw conclusions; the conclusions are already baked in from the start. The whole paper is just a desperate attempt to cherry-pick facts to support a predetermined opinion.

What's the connection? Sadly, it's tied to family dynamics, identity crises, and all those past disappointments people project onto the entire male gender... yeah, it goes on and on.

boldwalker12 said:The last time I tried explaining to someone—not here, obviously—why that kind of logic is totally flawed, they ended up feeling so empowered that they decided to write a whole damn manifesto on how women have been oppressing men throughout history. 😁
So, yeah, I'm passing on this one. Nothing personal, just protecting my sanity. 😁
And where did you get the idea that anyone is forcing you to adopt a feminist worldview? It sounds like you're just quoting, "We are the Borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile."

Look, I never asked you to explain anything to me. I laid out my reasoning for why I think those points don't work, and you can do whatever you want with that. If you want to counter my argument, provide actual evidence or a link that disproves me—otherwise, don't bother. 🤷

Any activist is going to claim that any view they don't personally deem "normal" is unacceptable. For me, certain feminist stances aren't necessarily "unacceptable"—they're just ridiculous. See the difference? If they actually held any power, they’d probably try to cancel me or tell me I need "re-education," but all I'd do is roll my eyes or change the subject. Just because I disagree with a feminist doesn't mean we can't talk about other stuff and actually have a good time. But most feminists? They lose their minds over anything they don't find acceptable.

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?

Well, I'm daring to say it. So what? Should I be thrown in jail because my opinion is "dangerous" to you? What should happen to me? Got any bright ideas?

boldwalker12 said: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.

Let's try this: imagine some sort of utopia where everyone's basic needs are totally met. Now, picture a woman between the ages of 20 and 35 who wants to have children. In your eyes, what would her primary role be during that stage of her life?

It's honestly sad that most women today don't have the freedom to choose everything they want.

boldwalker12 said: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.

Honestly, if neither parent is actually an authority figure, God help that kid. And honestly? God help everyone else once they grow up, too. But if the dad isn't the authority and the mom is, that kid is basically doomed from the start; and trying to get both parents to be authoritative at the same time? Good luck, because that’s pretty much impossible.

It’s basically a wash. For every thread like this, there’s another one running the exact opposite way. So... what's even the point? ☕ Of course someone who’s pissed off and frustrated is gonna start a massive, sweeping generalization thread like this. I mean, look at me—I’ve started them too. I'll admit it. Look, I love a good provocation... but you can't have a fire without fuel, right? You know what I'm saying?

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.

In the first case, you’ve basically got two personalities that are, in a twisted sort of way, perfectly matched in their immaturity. Look, I’m all for saying violence is bad—obviously. But the garbage being pushed through the media lately? It’s got zero basis in logic or actual science. If that's the case, why do we see these women constantly falling back into the same patterns with abusive partners? Nobody is forcing them into these relationships; they’re choosing them. On some subconscious level, they're drawn to that exact type of person. It’s such a massive, complicated issue that trying to sum it up in a few sentences is a lost cause. Fine. Let’s "prevent violence." Easy, right? How exactly? You really think there's a way to stop a deranged husband from killing his wife just because she wants to leave him? Seriously, tell me how. Someone who has made that decision is going to follow through. The only real solution would be if nobody even thought of doing it in the first place. And newsflash: you can't fix that with legislation. Especially not with the kind of mindless nonsense being proposed right now.

When it comes to sexual assault, most cases basically boil down to one person's word against another's. So, what’s the move then? Look, if someone kills the spirit of a woman, that's easy enough to see, but proving everything else? That's a massive uphill battle. This whole new proposal suggesting that a woman saying "no" should be enough on its own is just nonsense. Seriously, what does that even accomplish? It just brings us right back to the same old problem: it's just one person's word against another.

boldwalker12 said: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.

Why on earth should I be forced to think exactly like feminists? Honestly, that’s just called groupthink—or straight-up totalitarianism if we're being real. Thank God that through college and my current job, I’ve run into plenty of them, whether personally or by reading their papers. I actually collaborate with some of them, and I’ve never once tried to stop anyone from voicing their opinion, whether I agree with them or not. So, I expect the same courtesy in return. No need for the moral outrage here. Seriously though, why am I expected to take these "scientific" papers seriously when their methodology regarding the patriarchy is fundamentally broken? It’s hilarious how they always talk about the patriarchy using these ridiculous, fairy-tale examples—societies living "beyond the seven seas" that supposedly survived on nothing but crusts of bread and slices of cheese, politically crippled because they were constantly being trampled by other cultures until they devolved into mere survivalists. We could go on about that forever. Why don't they ever discuss the patriarchy using actual historical heavyweights like ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece? Or any actual, functioning society? This feminist narrative about male oppression dating back to the Stone Age is honestly so absurdly funny it’s almost pathetic. It has zero connection to any legitimate historical evidence.

Oh, please... this has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. And it's definitely not something that should be a crime. Sure, you could dive into their psychological profiles and debate them all day, but acting like we need to be outraged over this? Total waste of energy.

One of the most common fantasies for young guys is having sex with an older woman. So what?