Effect of feminism 115. severe cognitive dissonance. June as 2014 1. 1. 199 nudes Some ticks carries a disease, so we' re supposed to amid them all. Some sharks Effect of feminism 115 severe cognitive dissonance June as 2014 1 199 nudes Some ticks carries a disease so we' re supposed to amid them all sharks
Upload
Login or register

Effect of feminism 115

 
Effect of feminism 115. severe cognitive dissonance. June as 2014 1. 1. 199 nudes Some ticks carries a disease, so we' re supposed to amid them all. Some sharks

severe cognitive dissonance

June as 2014 1. 1. 199 nudes
Some ticks carries a disease, so we' re supposed to amid them all.
Some sharks bite people, so we' re supposed to always be cautious in
the sees n.
Some snakes are venomous, so if you cant decide whether it' s deadly
or not, assume deadly.
But no, not all men.
Some blacks steal, so we' re supposed to always be wary of black people.
Wait.
shut the **** up you gadda mu racist piece of ****
...
+834
Views: 36140 Submitted: 07/03/2014
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (224)
[ 224 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
131 comments displayed.
#1 - miia ONLINE
Reply +22
(07/03/2014) [-]
i cant even tell what its trying to do at this point
#2 to #1 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +99
(07/03/2014) [-]
She's saying all men should be avoided because a small percentage of men engage in violence toward women.

The counterpoint to her collectivist narrative is the guy making the same statement about black people, in an attempt to snap her out of that bigoted view.

It didn't work.
#3 to #2 - miia ONLINE
Reply +1
(07/03/2014) [-]
it looks like the same person is saying the thing about black people and the things about sharks and stuff
#75 to #3 - xxbandwagonxx
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I'm seeing the same thing you are.
#4 to #3 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
No the person changes when it gets to the black people part.

The first person is using the shark comments and such to try to justify her bigoted point of view
#19 to #4 - schwerdaddy
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
The confusing part is the grey box being around everything except the last line. So the part about black people is grouped with the original user's words. I have no idea why this is.
#5 to #2 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
It did work- with men, the women said it's fine; but with black people, it's suddenly racist and unacceptable, using the same reasoning. It's unacceptable logic for black people but acceptable logic for men, with the same logic, hence the photo's title "cognitive dissonance", just google what that means.
#6 to #5 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it didn't work xD
#7 to #6 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, I have just realised you uploaded the photo, and titled it. My bad xd
#35 - Fwimble
Reply +9
(07/04/2014) [-]
yeah theres a little thing humans have that's different than other animals
#36 to #35 - TheHutchie
Reply +42
(07/04/2014) [-]
I'd heard people mention gay brains, but this is the first time I've ever seen a picture of one. Very interesting.
#38 to #36 - Fwimble
Reply +3
(07/04/2014) [-]
#39 to #38 - epicalania ONLINE
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
#40 to #39 - Fwimble
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
#18 - mattdoggy
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
To whoever made the last comment, lighten up   
It's just proving a point   
besides, they are *******, they won't be able to work a computer anyway
To whoever made the last comment, lighten up
It's just proving a point
besides, they are *******, they won't be able to work a computer anyway
#78 to #18 - swiggityswooty
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
i can confirm, i am ***** and i cants read
#20 to #18 - tjflash
Reply +41
(07/03/2014) [-]
#56 - EdwardNigma
Reply +22
(07/04/2014) [-]
Even if they didn't carry diseases, would you want a tick anywhere near you in the first place?
#59 to #56 - theoneweirdguy
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
little vampires 'n' ****
#60 to #59 - boothead
Reply +2
(07/04/2014) [-]
**** the little ***** only thing worse than ticks are the blacks.
#34 - MrLewis
Reply +15
(07/04/2014) [-]
i dont what this was saying.

i dont know what the comments are saying.

i dont know who i should be angry at.

help me bandwagon.
#43 to #34 - grrphc
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Thank goodness I'm not alone.

Who the **** is on which side?
#45 to #43 - goldengohan ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
"but no, not all men" is sarcasm if that helps
#46 to #34 - bugsbob
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Kill them all and let whoever the **** is in charge of this ******** sort it out.
#55 to #34 - theaveragejoe
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
im with you. i have no idea whats going on
#73 to #34 - xxbandwagonxx
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
Can't help ya here, mate
#62 to #34 - timmywankenobi
Reply +3
(07/04/2014) [-]
This post is about how many feminist organizations say things like "All men are rapist or potential rapists " "all men are violent and abuse women and children" "all men are potential child molesters or rapists " . But if anyone were to act the same way towards say black people by saying "All black people steal " or against Jew by saying "All Jews horde shekels" or "all gay men sodomize little boys" they would immediately be called out as racist,anti-Semitic and homophobic. Feminist have created a state of sever cognitive dissonance when it comes to misandry.
#104 to #62 - MrLewis
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
**** I GET IT

im flippin retarded for not seeing that earlier.

thank you magic man
#8 - anon
Reply +1
(07/03/2014) [-]
Is that like saying all feminist suck because a small percentage of feminists engage in unreasonable behaviour?
#64 to #8 - gorginhanson
Reply -1
(07/04/2014) [-]
large* percentage
#82 to #8 - bighornwizardsheep
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Not femenists, femiNAZIs.
#16 to #8 - cupcakescankill
Reply +1
(07/03/2014) [-]
you sexist piece of **** how could you even say that about women
#15 to #8 - whichever ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/03/2014) [-]
I think feminists are fine.
feminazis on the other hand...
#27 to #8 - majormayor
Reply +5
(07/03/2014) [-]
"small percentage"
Even so, they still have a disproportionate/growing amount of influence and the moderates don't do enough to prevent that. It's a lot more divided than what the average FJ user thinks of "Feminist vs. Feminazi." I really don't like the term feminazi anyway.

It's funny how this is pretty much the main argument for feminists on here: But they're not real feminists! I don't even like teranin that much but at least he is somewhat decent at actually arguing.
#28 to #27 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +2
(07/03/2014) [-]
thanks, guy.
#33 to #28 - majormayor
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
When it comes to this subject, I think it is one that barely anyone on FJ knows any modicum amount of information. Most people base their views of the subject of what they see here. A lot of the arguments over feminism on FunnyJunk are crude and very simple, and many of them don't bring up much of anything about the ideology itself beyond the dictionary definition.
#9 to #8 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +15
(07/03/2014) [-]
No, because feminism is an ideology, not a biological reality one did not choose and cannot change.
#10 to #9 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
Oh I understand, all feminists do suck, though only a small percentage engage in unreasonable behaviour.
Oh I understand, all feminists do suck, though only a small percentage engage in unreasonable behaviour.
#11 to #10 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +7
(07/03/2014) [-]
The ideology sucks. I never said every person who identifies as feminists suck. That was you.
#12 to #11 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
Feminist ideology sucks? That ideology is "equal rights for men and women". So you don't like that? And if the ideology sucks, how does it work that not all feminists suck? Are they somehow detached from their ideology?

And I did not say that all feminists suck, I thought that was your viewpoint, because to you "all feminists suck because some do ****" is somehow not the same like "all men suck because some do ****".
#13 to #12 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +6
(07/03/2014) [-]
That's the dictionary definition, not the ideology.

Example, Christianity is defined as the belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. However, there's a lot more to it than that. The same is true for feminism. The application of their presupposed equality has manifested in an engine for superiority. I've explained this before.

You presented the statement "all feminists suck" as a strawman argument, where you attempted to construct my argument in a way that is suitable to your narrative and easy to knock down. You do this all the time. We're done again.
#41 to #13 - foogermier
Reply +3
(07/04/2014) [-]
A major difference between Christianity and Feminism is that Christian definition is in fact truth, they / I do believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah, but there is more in addition. Feminism, on the other hand, says Feminists want equality, but in reality most Feminists just want women to be known as all powerful.

According to our society, everyone is equal, just some people more equal then others. Also, I am indeed a Christian, but everyone needs to produce logic. I hate it when people just post bible verses, it makes us all look bad.
#22 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
Idealogy is fluid and varies from person to person and certainly within sub-groups. Arguing that one set of idealogies which you disagree with definitively characterises the entire group is simply wrong. You contradict your own point with the comparison to christianity. 'There's a lot more to it than that' - damn right. The dictionary definition of feminism holds to the same definition as egalitarianism, though with a focus on a subset of issues. As has been said numerous times on this site, you don't have a problem with feminism. You have a problem with faulty application which the internet has perfectly good labels for 'fembot' 'feminazi' etc. Take your pick of those.

Your resistance to recognise the difference is somewhat purplexing as all it does is stall any argument in such a way that you can only ever make yourself justified to yourself. ?Whats more, the initial point wasn't a strawman argument it was a perfectly valid commentary based on the content.
#24 to #22 - teranin [OP] ONLINE
Reply +2
(07/03/2014) [-]
I've never claimed "all feminists suck" nor has that ever been my argument.  When it is presented as my argument, that is a strawman, because it was not my argument.  There are plenty of people out there who identify as feminists and who actually want equality.  They, unfortunately, are neither the ones directing the ideology as a whole in academia, lobbying, or legislation, and are as marginalized as every other group actually wanting equality before the female superiority feminism which makes up the primary body of the ideology.   
   
You argue that it is not the primary body, but even NOW (National organization for women) has done things directly providing female superiority under the law, like their lobbying for limitations to paternity testing to save men from paying for children that are not theirs.     
   
It's not a matter of resistance, it's a matter of truth vs lies, of actions vs definitions.  A definition is not, and has never been, a manifesto.  Just as there are people in the MRM who have I'm sure done or said things that painted men in a light of superiority, (which is why I won't call myself a men's rights activist) this train is shared in all ideologies.  Actions are what matter to me, not proselytizing.   
   
I really hope you're not that anon from before.  That person has been desperate to shame me or contest my arguments with logical fallacies for weeks now.  Seen in the full context my actions are the only sane move here.
I've never claimed "all feminists suck" nor has that ever been my argument. When it is presented as my argument, that is a strawman, because it was not my argument. There are plenty of people out there who identify as feminists and who actually want equality. They, unfortunately, are neither the ones directing the ideology as a whole in academia, lobbying, or legislation, and are as marginalized as every other group actually wanting equality before the female superiority feminism which makes up the primary body of the ideology.

You argue that it is not the primary body, but even NOW (National organization for women) has done things directly providing female superiority under the law, like their lobbying for limitations to paternity testing to save men from paying for children that are not theirs.

It's not a matter of resistance, it's a matter of truth vs lies, of actions vs definitions. A definition is not, and has never been, a manifesto. Just as there are people in the MRM who have I'm sure done or said things that painted men in a light of superiority, (which is why I won't call myself a men's rights activist) this train is shared in all ideologies. Actions are what matter to me, not proselytizing.

I really hope you're not that anon from before. That person has been desperate to shame me or contest my arguments with logical fallacies for weeks now. Seen in the full context my actions are the only sane move here.
#31 to #24 - blueracer
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
im under the firm impression that if you need to single your self out as a feminist then your doing nothing but choosing to side with "femnazi" because at this point in time i think its better and more appropriate to associate with others as an Equal Rights Advocate. because at the end of the day if you are a feminist and not a femnazi you want equal rights for all correct? this is also a solution to the whole mens rights groups as an equal rights advocate could be in favor of men being treated better and women being treated better. bringing both under one banner along with LGBT group and anti racism is really the most adult thing to do im my opinion.



thoughts?
#110 to #31 - greyhoundfd
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
>Feminazis act like deranged *****, so we treat all feminists like feminazis

>Feminists try to act extremely reasonable to balance this out

>We ignore them and tell them to leave the movement.

There is no possible solution to this which results in feminists being considered reasonable. Why is it so hard for you people to treat feminists and feminazis as two separate groups? Yeah, Westboro Baptist Church is full of complete ********, but you send your complaints to them, not to the ******* unitarians.
#195 to #110 - blueracer
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
except femnazi still call themselves feminists. and yes asking them to leave the movement in favor of a more all inclusive movement one that lets both serious men and women in without scoffing at the first because "how could a man know anything about being a woman"


that fact of the matter is femnazi have ruined feminist name. but why even care when theres a movement that also fights for your rights just like the first, but also includes mens, trans, gay, black, and foreign peoples rights as well? do we not all deserve equality?
#222 to #195 - greyhoundfd
Reply 0
(07/06/2014) [-]
It's just that the argument that you're using is the same argument that people use to say "Oh, you can't say faggot because that used to be used as an offensive word". If we're willing to acknowledge that the feminazis now "own" the feminist label, then the feminazis have won. If we want to fight them, we need to refuse to allow them to use feminism as a cover for their actions, because that's what they're doing. They're using the respect people have for feminism as a cover so they can continue their actions. If we as a society can force them to abandon the feminist label, then they will no longer have that respect.

In the same way, if we acknowledge that the offensive meaning of faggot is now it's sole meaning, then we will never be able to use the word again in open society, and the people who used it that way will have won. Saying "******" or "faggot" in a non-offensive sense is not racist or homophobic, why should referring to normal feminists as "feminists" instead of **** like "Women's Rights Activists" be any different?
#14 to #13 - anon
Reply 0
(07/03/2014) [-]
There is no lot more to feminism than the textbook definition. There are only the fields where equality has to be established, and yes, there is the small percentage of morons who claim to be feminists when they actually hate men. A tiny minority, even a lot smaller than the minority of men who hurt women.   
   
The problem with your explanation is that you lack the actual proof. What you call proof are the few examples you can come up with, like this highly irrelevant tumblr quote, that, btw, I cannot even find via google. But even if I could, it is - ironically - your small percentage that does not represent the whole.   
   
So your explanation is a thesis.   
   
And whenever your thesis is being challenged, you allege the challenger uses impure methods and exclaim the discussion is over.
There is no lot more to feminism than the textbook definition. There are only the fields where equality has to be established, and yes, there is the small percentage of morons who claim to be feminists when they actually hate men. A tiny minority, even a lot smaller than the minority of men who hurt women.

The problem with your explanation is that you lack the actual proof. What you call proof are the few examples you can come up with, like this highly irrelevant tumblr quote, that, btw, I cannot even find via google. But even if I could, it is - ironically - your small percentage that does not represent the whole.

So your explanation is a thesis.

And whenever your thesis is being challenged, you allege the challenger uses impure methods and exclaim the discussion is over.
#57 - Jeff C
Reply +11
(07/04/2014) [-]
I always try to avoid women, they have cooties and ****. Gross.
#83 to #57 - Maroon
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
#193 to #83 - Jeff C
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Your name is maroon but your name is blue, faggot
#165 to #57 - zeroqp
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
men **** too you know.
#169 to #165 - Jeff C
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
You are mistaken sure, I meant cooties and **** as in cooties and things like cooties, not cooties and **** as in cooties and they take *****
#190 to #169 - zeroqp
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I was just kidding... haha
#70 - thirdjess
Reply +5
(07/04/2014) [-]
Guys calm the **** down, avoiding and being cautious of all men does not equal hating all men and wishing they were dead. It just means not being in a vulnerable position until I know a person well enough to judge whether or not they are rapey.
#221 to #70 - technoshaman
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Hey, you and I had an interesting discussion here a little while ago and I respect your opinions. I went back to look at it and notice timmywan was being his usual misogynistic duchey self. Please don't pay him any mind, I've had it out with him before. He's in his own close-minded little world.
#224 to #221 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/06/2014) [-]
I figured after he started referencing MRA statistics as if they were worth a damn. Unfortunately that was very late in the conversation
#100 to #70 - technoshaman
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
I understand the logic but I have some issue with it. Wouldn't it seem a bit ridiculous of a man to avoid or tip-toe around women because he was afraid one was going to accuse him of rape and get him sent to jail, or because they might drug and rob him? It's normal to be cautious around new people, that's part of our biology, but to be actively worried about a specific crime around only one sex seems, I don't know, paranoid. I wish there was a better word for that.
#109 to #100 - thirdjess
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
In a prison enironment, you're not meant to put yourself in a vulnerable position because someone will shank you or rape or who knows what else. In prison, male rape is extremely common.

It's not a case of tiptoeing around a man, it's just making sure someone else knows where I am, going to the bathroom in pairs, avoiding being with a man that seems suspicious to me where we would be hidden. You know. Just the same as when you work in a convenience store in the middle of the bad part of town, everyone is a thief unless proven otherwise. You watch them like a hawk.
#116 to #109 - technoshaman
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
Again, I understand reasonable caution around unfamiliar people, but correct me if I'm wrong; in your last sentence you are straight up saying that all men are rapists until proven otherwise. When is a person proven not to be something, as you can't prove a negative.

And real life isn't a prison environment, as most people haven't committed any crime, nor do they want to.
And for the record, prison rape isn't as common as pop culture likes to make it seem. Most prison prison sex is actually consensual with prisoners who make themselves available for it. I wish I could remember the source on that.
#126 to #116 - cerebrallawlsy
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
I am not hating or trying to start something, but I would agree that in that certain settings a man is considered dangerous to a woman until proven otherwise. Especially after certain and particular news blow ups in the US about guys who have been murdering women/people in general because women won't date or like them. And even more so being in Canada, our government does a lot to educate the masses about assault against women. Buses have advertisements from the government that say, "It's a girl! There is a 50/50 chance she will be assaulted in her life"

It's not just women whining and complaining or lying. There are real facts that prove men are pretty much the top danger to a woman's life, whether it be to end or cause harm to it. A woman is also more likely to be molested/raped by someone she knows than a stranger, as well. My own mother, when she was about 17, was once choked out by her ex-boyfriend because she wouldn't date him again and he even said to her, "If I can't have you, no one can". For myself, I once had a guy who supposedly loved me and even though I told him a thousand times I wasn't interested in a relationship or a friendship, he was so persistent that I was honestly scared for my life. He would one minute send me messages about how much he loved me and then the next minute be like, "You're nothing but a goddamn bitch and I ******* hate you, I knew all along you were so fake and I wish I never ******* met you" and THEN be like, "Baby I'm so sorry I didn't mean it, I'm just having a bad day"

Lol, I also had a guy once tell me that I was SO hot I was perfect for being raped. And then he didn't understand why I was upset by his comment.
#173 to #126 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
You do know all of those ad's are put there by feminists right ? and feminists don't use facts they invent them. If you read the actually stats you'd know that the 50/50 thing uses the feminist definition of assault which includes lying to a woman,yelling,screaming,arguing,grabbing her hand,slapping,pinching,emotional assault, spraying water on her, stealing from her,rubbing her arm without verbal consent, kissing her without verbal consent,swearing at her,constantly texting her or looking at her phone in a possessive manner, pulling her hair,punching,kicking,defending yourself from her violence,asking her were she was and who she was with all the time.financial abuse (borrowing money and not paying it back) by this definition researchers have found 100% of men will be assaulted in their lives. Feminist are sneaky and redefine definitions to make things seem worse to scare women it's called scare tactics. So you met 1 guy who was crazy out of 4.2 billion ? that's you proof society needs to see all men as potential rapists ? I was once mugged by a black guy so that mean all black people are thieves right ?
#220 to #173 - technoshaman
Reply +1
(07/05/2014) [-]
"...by this definition researchers have found that 100% of men will be assaulted in their life."

You just invented a fact. And by your definition I'd say 100% of women will also be assaulted in their life. Because who hasn't been yelled at before. There are people who try to spread misinformation but it isn't all feminists, by my reckoning it isn't even most feminists. There are always going to be dishonest people who lie or use warped logic to push their agendas and sometimes those people get to positions of authority (source: every government ever). But most people aren't terrible like that.
#223 to #220 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/06/2014) [-]
no most people aren't terrible but it only takes a few in key positions.
#120 to #116 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
To me, they kind of are. Corner store situation, all they have to do is pay and they're not theives. For me, all they have to do is not invade my space repeatedly and they're casj. I've had people press me into bars, or try and grab my boob on public transport. While that obviously doesn't make them rapists, it means they don't respect my consent/will/desires and it means they're not someone I'd be drunk around.
#140 to #120 - technoshaman
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
See, that's a big part of it. I'm a psych major and what you've just described represents something I've been saying about this for a long time. Groping means someone is a douche, but being a rapist (or any other violent criminal) usually comes with some sort of emotional and/or mental issues that sets one apart from normal societies. I assume you were referring to the Elliot Rodgers shooting at the start of your comment. What the media (and twitter) liked to glance over is the fact that he was SEVERELY mentally disturbed. Normal, well adjusted people don't generally committing violence and if western society would stop making mental health such a taboo issue maybe people like him could have been identified and helped/put away before he did anything.

I totally understand not wanting to get groped, that's a common enough problem that stems from society not teaching enough respect for basic humanity and a lot of men think they can get away with it. hell, a lot of women think they can get away with it, I've never liked being touched without an invitation, regardless of the persons sex . It's just that I've been (fairly violently) sexually assaulted before and it always bothers me when people equate things like groping or disrespectful comments with that.
#142 to #140 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rapey

Rapey isn't calling someone a rapist, and I did say being rapey 'obviously doesn't make them rapists'
#156 to #142 - technoshaman
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I've never never heard the term rapey used other than as a descriptor for a person who might commit rape or a place where rape may occur. Well, I guess you learn something new every day.
#103 to #100 - shanethedragon
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
sexist?
#105 to #103 - technoshaman
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I guess that would apply, but I feel like a word less dependent on the circumstances would do a better job describing the concept.
#106 to #105 - shanethedragon
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
gonna keep trying. sexinoid?
#77 to #70 - slapchoppin
Reply +2
(07/04/2014) [-]
oh but when i'm cautious of women because theres a chance they might be a cunt i'm a misogynist
#79 to #77 - thirdjess
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
Ok apart from the fact that being a rapist and being a cunt are REALLY DIFFERENT, no. Being cautious of someone is not the same as hating a group of people based on their gender.
#87 to #79 - slapchoppin
Reply -1
(07/04/2014) [-]
of course they're REALLY DIFFERENT that was the part that was supposed to make the joke obvious
#88 to #87 - thirdjess
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
I've had a lot of people say that to me completely seriously
#95 to #88 - anon
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
what percentage of men do you consider rapey? because to my knowledge its a very small amount.... so is your first instinct always "oh theres a guy hes probably rapey since i dont know him well enough to know otherwise "
#97 to #95 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Rapey as in rapists? Of men that I'm likely to interact with (adverse to all men, including people from countries where rape is a norm) I'd say.. I dunno, 6-8%? Rapey as in people that will take advantage of me or try to cop a feel, that sort of thing, I'd double it.

Only 10-15% of snakes are venemous. If you lack the knowledge to identify a snake, you wouldn't put yourself in a position in which it can harm you. You wouldn't pick it up, or spook it, etc. Same logic. At least snakes have distinct patterns.
#174 to #97 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
you're sexist.
#118 to #97 - anon
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
6-8%? Jesus, I know way more than 100 guys, and I'd wager maybe... 2 of them could do something like that? ****** sake, you're either hanging in the wrong part of town, or this is a really ******* insulting generlization.
#121 to #118 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I also know over a hundred guys and I know (knew, I don't talk to them any more for obvious reasons) at least 8 people who have done some pretty shady ****.
#123 to #121 - anon
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
so, out of over a hundred guys, 8 have done "shady ****." Does that mean rape? Or drugs? Prostitutes? Because, a drug user isn't necessarily a rapist, nor is someone who pays for sex. Either way, no, I've come to the conclusion that you're a sexist. You're generalizing, and frankly, it's offensive as ****. I work in retail in a shady part of town. Anyone can be a shoplifter, or a robber... But it doesn't mean I'll assume they are from the beginning. That's just ******* rude.
#131 to #123 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Obviously a drug user isn't a rapist, that's flat out illogical. I mean like sleeping with an underage person who can barely walk, sticking their dick into a woman who is passed out, getting caught roofying someone, straight up rape.

Someone walks into your store you're not gonna blindfold yourself, are you? You keep an eye on them.
#175 to #131 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
keeping you eye on someone in your store does not equate to believing every person who walks into the store is a thief until proven otherwise. Also by your logic women should not be allow around children since the majority of child abuse comes from biological mothers and as you said we can't know which mothers are abusive so we should we need to treat all mothers like child abusers until proven otherwise right ?
#176 to #175 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
If I'm sexist, how come literally every single one of my favourite people is male?
#177 to #176 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
you can have male friends and still-hold sexist views.
#178 to #177 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Being sexist is hating one gender for nothing more than the fact that they are that gender.
#179 to #178 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
yes or believing/spreading hateful things about that entire gender even if only 5.6% are responsible.
#180 to #179 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I said 6% of the men I interact with, but EXCUSE ME for being a WHOLE FOURTH OF A PERCENTILE OFF.
#181 to #180 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
that's not the point . the point is you said women should view all men as potential rapists even though only 5.6% of men will ever commit a rape. Which is why I said since 60-65% of child abuse by your comes from mothers by your bigoted logic we should view all mothers as potential child abusers.
#183 to #181 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
The difference between your apparently false scenario is there are multiple large organisations both official and non dedicated to identifying and remedying abuse situations. When there's an app that can tell me one particular man has been seen punching a woman and to keep an eye on him, let me know and I'll stop making sure I'm not alone at night.
#219 to #183 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
The quotes are real. As I said before I am aware that there are many equality feminists but as long as the radical are in charge of the majority of lobbies and councils and corporations ,average everyday women with no power saying they believe in equality while still clinging to the outdated,debunked and sexist notion of patriarchy theory will not have any effect on feminist policy or feminist legalities. Feminism is corrupted by greed and bigotry at the highest levels and it is dying because of it. Hopefully egalitarianism will take over when feminism is gone.
#217 to #183 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Wait wait wait providing evidence of some high ranking feminist women being sexist is sexist ?
#218 to #217 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
You didn't do that, though. You provided satire, false quotes and extremists who misrepresent the movement. I am one of many, many sane feminists, we're not hard to find if you look. The difference is, the people who yell and scream about 'equal rights' on the internet tend to be the extremists. They, shocking as it sounds, behave extremely to get attention. Negative or positive.
#215 to #183 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
I also included radical/man hating quotes from many well respected feminists.
#216 to #215 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Isn't it ironic that you called me sexist and now you yourself are behaving in a very sexist manner?
#212 to #183 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Because No Feminist organizations ever denounced any of these things except the #castration day one because it is "too radical", and no feminist has ever been penalized for being a radical and radical feminism is taught in universities which is encouraging them.
#214 to #212 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Gee that's a super interesting and also entirely wrong opinion.
#213 to #207 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Apart from the fact that still none of those are proof that Feminists welcome radical ideals, none of those are serious posts. They're all mocking radical feminism.
#209 to #207 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
How in the hell is that proof that Feminists accept Feminazis with open arms.
#205 to #183 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Soo you have no proof then ? Cause I have asked like 10 other feminist the same question and none of them had any proof either they just said someone had told them or they thought they read it somewhere. Rumors are not proof or fact. I believe all feminist even equality feminists are controlled by the higher up feminists the one's in the big feminist Corporations,Lobbies and Universities Councils. Also the fact that radical feminists are invited into feminist organizations rather then expelled is quite revealing of feminist bigotry. The bottom line is I can't trust any feminist until they start kicking out man hating radicals, just like the MRA's ban and block out and excommunicate Woman haters and people that advocate violence on a regular basis.
#206 to #205 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
"Show me one shred of evidence (feminists don't dispise feminazis) cause I couldn't find any"
#185 to #183 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
well then when there are apps that do the same for women plus tell me which women are gold diggers I'll do the same.
#182 to #181 - thirdjess
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
60% of rapes are commited by men, so by your logic we should view all men as rapists.. oh wait. And actually according to this study, 55.6% of abuse cases on children under the age of 15 were by the father or stepfather, so..

www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html
#203 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Show me one sherd of evidence elliot rodger was a mra cause I couldn't find any and in fact has internet history contain 0 mra sites or threads on reddit or anywhere else he had no conversation with any mra ever and according to the facts he didn't even know of MRA's existence. CAFE has been working on men's shelters etc but it is taking a long time because feminist resistance to the idea of male victims is violent and radical. Every-time MRA's try to build shelters or centers ect for men Feminist send death and bomb threats.
#204 to #203 - thirdjess
-1
(07/05/2014) [-]
I actually read an article by my state news saying that Elliot was a frequent visitor of a couple of MRA based reddits, and that it was a mix of MRA ideals, being told that he was owed the world and being crazy that set him off. Also the only case of that I can think of was a female Male Rights Activist (not associated with the MRA) petitioning for a mens shelter and she was sent death threats by two old cows.

You have a bit of a hypocritical perspective: feminists are all feminazis, but MRAs are not radical at all.
#202 to #200 - thirdjess
-1
(07/05/2014) [-]
And by the by, Elliot Rodgers was an MRA. I'm not saying all MRAs are Elliot Rodgers, but it's clear he was influenced by them quite heavily.
#201 to #200 - thirdjess
-1
(07/05/2014) [-]
A voice for men is an MRA website (they're 'antiactivists' not pro male activists) and is as trustworthy and legitimate as one in four usa. Also "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders." While that is of her opinion, it is also the legal definition. In 2008 (a year before the paper that quote references and two years before the NISVS) Australia updated it's definition of a rapist to: A person who sexually penetrates another person without consent of that other person shall be guilty of rape.

MRAs are basically the male rights equivalent of feminazis. A quote I rather like goes something along the lines of 'You complain about how battered womens shelters out number battered mens shelters three to one, but while we're working hard to make those shelters possible, you campaign to tear them down instead of campaigning to build your own.'
#198 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
Trust me they used her "work" and definitions look up her **** for yourself.
#199 to #198 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
I know who she is, any feminist worth their grain of salt know's who she is. Any feminist worth their grain of salt does not agree with her methods at all. But she hasn't been active for a long time.
#196 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/05/2014) [-]
The CDC used feminist definitions and that sexual violence work was done by a radical feminist Dr Mary Koss who says in that cdc paper that men can't be raped by women and she claims a man forced to penetrate a vagina as consensual sex, further more she counts kissing,groping or molesting a woman without consent as rape. In fact if you look at her work 70% of the woman she says were raped say they were not raped and like 15% married the person ! .
#197 to #196 - thirdjess
0
(07/05/2014) [-]
No. Legally (not 'the feminist definition), rape is defined as nonconsensual penetration, be it vaginal, oral or anal. A man being raped by a woman in terms of being fed a stimulant and ridden is classified as 'sexual assault' not 'rape' because the man is not penetrated. I don't agree with that myself, but that's how he law defines it.

Furthermore, I just download the NISVS (the national survey that data is a summary of) and not only is Mary Koss not credited anywhere in the document, she's not even listed in the 'suggested citaitons'.

So basically you're full of ****.
#192 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
"% of men that commit a crime' and comparing it to '% of gender who commits said crime'. They're different ******* statistics, you idiot. " No they are not you **** wit the percentage of males committing a crime and the percentage of men committing a crime are the exact same number because male is the gender and men are male they are literally synonyms.
#194 to #192 - thirdjess
-1
(07/05/2014) [-]
The percentage of men that commit a crime is not the same as the percentage of a gender having commit said crime. If you hve a hundred men and five of them are rapists, 5% are rapists. If you have a hundred children, five of them were abused, two by their father and three by their mother, 60% of the abuse cases report to have been vicitims of the mother. Saying that 60% were made victim to their mother does not report on how likely a mother is to abuse her child. They're different statistics you twit.

Here, government released crime fact sheet. Top left. One in five say they have experienced rape at some point in their life time. www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/SV-DataSheet-a.pdf and keep in mind that half of rape cases aren't reported.
#191 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
1 in 4 women being raped is a completely debunked feminist number based solely on their feelings not facts or evidence. Go and try to find non feminist numbers even remotely close to 1 in 4 .(Protip you wont because that number is completely fabricated as part of their fear-mongering and rape hysteria campaign.)
#186 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
"A British retrospective prevalence study of 2,869 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse (49% of incidents compared to 40%). However, part of the difference may be explained by the greater time children spend with their mothers than fathers"
#184 to #182 - timmywankenobi
Reply 0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I wasn't using Australian numbers also they didn't divide father for step father or mother from step mother and important distinction. Also in the US the number of rapes committed by men is about 58% that means 42% is by women those numbers are pretty close and men massively under report. Again it's your logic not mine retard.
#189 to #184 - thirdjess
0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Oh also while 5.6% of men may commit rape, one in four women have been raped. So there you go.
#188 to #184 - thirdjess
0
(07/04/2014) [-]
I have been called homophobic for not wanting to date women because I personally think vaginas are gross as ****, despite the fact that I have one. I have been called bigoted and racist for saying that the logic of Americans and gun ownership is ****** up. And now I'm sexist for being cautious around people I don't know. Cool.

Hey, next time you're in a city, don't lock your car, cause being cautious is sexist.
#187 to #184 - thirdjess
0
(07/04/2014) [-]
Lets see, if a woman you don't know asks for a large sum of money she's probably a gold digger. If a man drags me into an ally, what am I meant to do. It's a lot easier for you to say 'hey don't spend my money' than for me, a hundred pound woman, to fight off an attacker, male or female.

Also if you read like one sentence down you'll see that it's a difference in severity. The fathers will leave a black eye, the mothers will make em feel bad on the inside. The logic I was mimicking was that you were taking '% of men that commit a crime' and comparing it to '% of gender who commits said crime'. They're different ******* statistics, you idiot.
#117 to #70 - funbaggy
Reply +2
(07/04/2014) [-]
Eh, can't really blame you, gotta keep yourself safe.
#53 - fuckoatmeal
Reply +5
(07/04/2014) [-]
Racist!
#47 - whypop
Reply +4
(07/04/2014) [-]
Feminism has become anti-men
Mens Rights Activism has become anti Feminism

Its all about Egalitarianism.
#81 to #47 - smashingtonic
Reply +1
(07/04/2014) [-]
It's all about removing feminism
#48 to #47 - itsthatguyagain
Reply +3
(07/04/2014) [-]
I think you mean it's all about not giving a ****.
#49 to #48 - whypop
Reply +2
(07/04/2014) [-]
exactly.