Feminism. in a nutshell. FEMINISM feminist Robot i am a Massive faggot farts Rape why raaaaaaaaaape Aaaaaaah
Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - bastille **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#28 to #9 - gentlemanpyro (07/10/2013) [-]
Heres one without the RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA in the back if ya want
#4 - anon (07/10/2013) [-]
tbh i think there should be a new word for feminist because silly people have hijacked it
i'm pretty sure equalist is already a thing but really there needs to be a new word because no one respects feminists anymore when by the very definition of feminism, most people on here are one
idk just some thoughts
#29 to #4 - anon (07/10/2013) [-]
How 'bout feminazis?
#5 to #4 - anon (07/10/2013) [-]
yep, people who care for equal rights are that, feminism is a sinking ship.
User avatar #11 to #4 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
false: unless most people on here believe all men are violent and agressive and thus flawed by their masculine nature and women are perfect because feminitiy is perfect and has no flaws. anyone who doesn't subscribe to this "core belief" of feminisim is not a feminists they are more likely a egalitarian or something.
#8 to #4 - anon (07/10/2013) [-]
Ok Amon you cant fool us with your equalist movement
#3 - benevolentpsycho (07/10/2013) [-]
I respect women , but girls who always treat people like 			****		 shouldn't be allowed to talk.
I respect women , but girls who always treat people like **** shouldn't be allowed to talk.
User avatar #6 - egosumproxi (07/10/2013) [-]
What is the source of the comic again? I recognize it, but I cannot remember the name.
User avatar #7 to #6 - timmity [OP]ONLINE (07/10/2013) [-]
i found it browsing imgur
User avatar #1 - KingKobo (07/09/2013) [-]
And that's the story of GladOs
User avatar #12 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
I dislike feminisim because when feminists, influential or otherwise, are presented with solid evidence demonstrating that domestic violence is NOT, in fact, a sexually directional behavior, that it is NOT consistent with their unifying theory of The Patriarchy, that women are actually MORE likely to be violent toward their partners than men, that men and women abuse their partners for the exact same reasons, that women are MORE likely, in fact, to engage in coercive control of a partner, that women are NOT much more likely to be injured or killed by a partner, that mothers are MORE likely than fathers to abuse children, that unilateral violence is 50% MORE likely to be female-perpetrated than male…

Well, what those with any power –those most invested in the ideology– did, in response to that solid, contrary evidence was to engage in boycotts, censorship, intimidation, terrorism, death threats, blacklisting, information suppression, denial, dismissal, shaming, false accusations, and cover-ups. And the ones who didn’t, who said, “hey, wait a minute. We need to look into this,” they were excommunicated.

User avatar #13 to #12 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
Domestic violence is a reflection of a system which is based on female subordination and male dominance. Violence, oppression, coercion, domination and abuse are integral aspects of masculinity, and behaviors not just normalized and reinforced by The Patriarchy, but intrinsic to it.

The negative qualities that make people beat up their partners are not human qualities, they are masculine qualities, and they are an integral part of how masculinity and femininity interact under The Patriarchy, a system where men have always held power.

the element of feminist theory that feminists were driven to death threats, blacklisting and violence to preserve, was the very element that makes hating men morally justifiable.

Robin Morgan said " Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act–the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

And if men aren’t that way–you know, aren’t violent, oppressive, coercive, dominating and abusive toward women, at least no more so than women are toward men–then all of a sudden it’s no longer justifiable to hate men, is it? Feminists have spent almost 40 years concealing evidence that contradicts the specific misconceptions that give women the right, as a class, to hate men, as a class. They’ve perpetuated stereotypes that violence, aggression, and abuse–especially of women–are “normal” male behaviors, encouraged and abetted by a culture that is shaped by male-dominance, in the face of evidence that men are no more ****** in their behavior toward women than women are in their behavior toward men.

User avatar #14 to #13 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
Why would they do that, if they didn’t want people to hate men? Or if their hatred of men didn’t inform their attachment to the aspects of their theories that expressly justify it? Why is it that the facets of their theory that directly connect the most harmful behaviors of humans to maleness and maleness alone, why is it those are the very ones they’re prepared to engage in terrorism to preserve?

User avatar #15 to #14 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
It was the misandry-engendering parts of the theory feminists were willing to maintain, by threatening and blacklisting researchers, and then rewriting law and policy such that actual victims of domestic violence would be sent to prison if they’re male, innocent men would be stripped of their homes and children, and violent female perpetrators would walk–with full custody of their kids, no less. Those facets of the theory are the most adamantly defended by those in control of the narrative.

User avatar #16 to #15 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
what are the exact aspects of feminist theory that feminists are so desperate to protect by attempting to emulsify the oil of narrative and the water of empirical reality? To hold two completely contradictory ideas in their heads at once, and then bemoan that “no one said feminism was easy”? What motivates them to continue to tie a sexual behavior more common among WOMEN, and more likely to be normalized and endorsed by the culture when women are the aggressors, with masculinity?

Surprise! It’s the part that, when attributed to masculinity, makes men hate-worthy. It’s the part that makes people see maleness as bad, as evil, as deserving of hate and prejudice.

And you know, as much as feminists lie through their teeth about things like the pay gap and old boys’ clubs and sexism in employment and education, I haven’t EVER heard of anyone sending death threats to a researcher, or screaming, “YOU ARE ******* SCUM!!!!” into the face of someone interested in hearing another point of view, over the pay gap or subtle employment sexism.

The ONLY aspects of feminist theory –you know, the theory that IS feminISM– that feminists have engaged in violence, death and bomb threats, intimidation and false accusations to preserve are the aspects of feminist theory that cast men as uniquely subhuman monsters, and therefore worthy of hate.

User avatar #17 to #16 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
If the tenets of feminist theory that feminists defend most adamantly –with sociopathic or criminal behavior, no less– are the very tenets that collectively portray men as inhuman monsters and women, collectively, as their victims, the parts that naturally lead society to hate men for the horrible things they, and only they, are prone to do… then yes, I’d say feminism is hate. Because it’s the aspects of the theory that lead people to hate men that feminists seem most interested in protecting.

And you might think those aspects are “radical,” and I suppose you’re right. “Radical” means “pertaining to the root”. It does not describe fringe beliefs, it describes core, fundamental ones. Basic ones. Ones that are foundational to an ideology. The equivalent of, “was Christ the son of god, and did he die for our sins?” It’s the radical feminists who are “doing it right”. The moderates and coffee shop feminists are nothing more than poseurs and pick-and-choosers–Christmas Christians who engage in premarital sex and swipe office supplies from work, but rationalize it away because they like the idea of a Jesus that loves them no matter what.

User avatar #18 to #17 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
Individual feminists might not be primarily motivated by a hatred of men, but feminism is, absolutely, hate. It encourages hate, gives people moral permission to hate, condones and endorses that hate, and incites individuals and governments to act on that hate–and it is the specific elements of feminist theory with the least validity and empirical support, and which serve these very purposes, which are the ones most closely nurtured and guarded by feminists invested in them, and most zealously shielded from scrutiny, refutation or challenge. The ideology, and those in control of the narrative, are at their most vehement when it comes to maintaining feminism’s most hateful premises.

It might not be hate if it was supported by valid, empirical evidence, or if it adjusted its tenets in the face of contrary evidence. It would just be reality.

The way to prove that an ideology IS based on hate is to demonstrate that 1) it is false, 2) its falsities engender and promote unjustifiable hate, and 3) those falsities are the most adamantly defended and preserved by its followers.

All the elements of feminist ideology that are most likely to justify and encourage the hate of men rest on lies, half-truths, and censorship of opposing viewpoints and evidence, through a history of boycotts, intimidation and even terrorism.
User avatar #19 to #18 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
thus from all this we can gather feminisim never was nor ever will be about gender equality, any one who believes in equality should follow a different path like egalitarianisim ect because a message bulit on hate can never bring equality.
User avatar #22 to #19 - daIRONman (07/10/2013) [-]
That was a very entertaining rant you posted. A+.
User avatar #24 to #22 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
well thank you .
User avatar #20 to #19 - blackandgold (07/10/2013) [-]
how does it make you feel that no one will read all of this
User avatar #21 to #20 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
meh, what matters is I wrote truth weither or not people choose to read it is up to them.
User avatar #43 to #19 - egosumproxi (07/11/2013) [-]
That is an impressive wall of text you have put up, and I admit I did skip to the end, but "Feminism never was nor ever will be about gender equality." I am sorry, what? I think maybe feminism was about gender equality at least originally, you know, back when you couldn't vote if you were a woman. Or when the father had total control over what happened to property, money, and children, in the event of a divorce, which I am pretty sure he also had total decision making power over whether or not that happened. Or a few decades ago when women would get paid less for doing the same work as a man. There is probably more I could mention, but it has literally been a decade since I did modern history in school, and the feminist movement hasn't held any special fascination for me since I am a guy.

I think the problem nowadays is the same as with a lot of religions. That is that those loudest in its support are the most likely to use it as a vehicle for their own goal/ideals/hatred, and also likely to be the least intelligent involved. It's people who think being affiliated with one particular group gives you "moral permission" to hate another group that will always taint the image of any good movement. Generally these people get affiliated in the first place so they can feel justified hating something I find.
Now in feminism I think there are women, possibly a lot of women, idk, that think feminism is about more about misandry (interesting note: Spell-check does not recognize misandry as a word.) than it is about making sure you get a fair go in the work place and the courtroom. Those women are the loudest, the most seen, first to picket and protest. They are the West-borough Baptists of the feminist movement.

Shouldn't judge a group by its loudest members, the stupid and the ignorant are the ones that substitute facts and logic for decibels.
User avatar #44 to #43 - timmywankenobi (07/11/2013) [-]
you are mistaking the womens rights and sufferage movement for feminisim they are fundamentally different feminisim only lached it self onto the womens rights movement in the late 60's early 70's to gain credability and power and had almost nothing to do with anything you listed (feminists certianly did not fix divorce law nor did it have any part in women gaining the right to vote also feminists still insist their is a wage gap today when all the government ecnomists and statisticans can't find any at all) . you missed my point entirely the loud radicals are the ones following femi nisim to the letter the equalists feminists just pick and choose parts of feminisim they like and they try to leave the hate men part behind but they cannot because it is the ideal at the heart of feminisim if you remove it the whole thing crumbles.
#30 - deletedmyaccount (07/10/2013) [-]
I've seen too much feminist and anti-feminist **** in the last month to even care anymore.

**** both sides, I'd rather an hero than listen to anyone tell me about how feminists are evil, or how the patriarchy is so bad.

Here's the truth; both sides have legitimate arguments, but these are made by sane people. The crazy radical people are louder and more interesting, and drown out the good. This plus the way too high number of people just ******* around and pretending to care means both sides look stupid and crazy.
User avatar #31 to #30 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
it's not the people who are evil it's the ideology. just as a lot of german soilders were not evil but nazisim was.
#32 to #31 - deletedmyaccount (07/10/2013) [-]
The ideology? The basic premise is equal opportunity. That's actually pretty good.

It's the people who pervert the REAL goal and make it "Women are better, men are evil," or "Castrate everyone!" that are evil.

Or the men who take it as a personal attack, or can't see the need for it because THEY'RE fine. Men who are upset because they're not seeing the benefits the opposing side claims they have. They're not evil, but just kind of dumb (often times).
User avatar #33 to #32 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
you don't seem to know the Ideology of feminisim at all, only equaliy feminist who are despite being larger a fringe division of feminisim believe in "equality for women" (even though women have more rights and legal power then men) they are not saying men are disadvantaged in any way they are cleaverly implying women need more then they have now to be equal to privilged men. but even they do not follow several of feminisims core beliefs and as such are not truly feminist more of a weird blend of feminisim and humanitarian.

you should read my speech a few posts down for a more elaborate explaination.
#34 to #33 - deletedmyaccount (07/10/2013) [-]
Dude, I dunno where you learned about feminism, or who you know that thinks they're feminist, but everyone I know who claims to be a feminist is about equality in jobs, in divorce courts (yes, for men and women), etc.

Basically, instead of defining what we consider to be more female behavior (ex: being less assertive, weaker, sexy) as being behavior of a specific person, not just a gender. Same with "manly" behaviors and attributes.

User avatar #35 to #34 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
then they are just picking and chhosing certian elements of feminisim they like and disregarding the ones they don't. it's like saying "all the nazi's I know don't hate jews at all"-then they aren't really nazi's are they ? just as equality feminists don't follow the core tennants of feminisim. but by calling youself a nazi even if you personally don't hate jews you are still propagating for the cause. in this same way anyone saying they are feminists support all the tennants and branches of feminisim including hating men. this is way I urge people to throw feminisim aside and become egalitarian or a humanits or equalists or whatever because just as nazisim cannot be reformed neither can feminisim.
#36 to #35 - deletedmyaccount (07/10/2013) [-]
Alrighty, well, I disagree with you a hell of a lot, so I'm going to go ahead and leave this conversation. Have fun with writing anti-feminism essays on a comedy site!

Also, Godwin's law, you brought up Nazis, I won the argument, google it.
User avatar #37 to #36 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
lol yes I did but only to make a impact and because it was a fitting anology. maybe I'm wrong and feminisim can be reformed but I have seen no signs of wilingness to change, only rejection of reality by the leaders of feminisim in order to make more money.
User avatar #38 to #36 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
also you can just look up the tennants of feminists theory to see for yourself what I'm talking about.
#23 - thisotherdude (07/10/2013) [-]
Feminist, they won't be happy until the get legal permission to systematically go door to door removing men's penises (hopefully they don't have enough sense to extract the semen, a bit of karma is always nice)
User avatar #25 to #23 - timmywankenobi (07/10/2013) [-]
actually one of the more radically plans involves manditiory sperm collections on a mans 18th birthday and all the samples will be stored in massive refridrated wharehouses ,then the man is castrated and the penis and testicles are forceably taken and incernrated in a giant furnace.
User avatar #39 to #25 - egosumproxi (07/11/2013) [-]
What'd in a giant furnace?
User avatar #40 to #39 - timmywankenobi (07/11/2013) [-]
oh "incinerated" sorry about that you'll have to pardon my dyslexia.
User avatar #41 to #40 - egosumproxi (07/11/2013) [-]
My bad then, I have had friends with dyslexia. One of them had to wear reading glasses tinted hot pink, because idk, somehow it helped.
User avatar #42 to #41 - timmywankenobi (07/11/2013) [-]
hmm thats odd but it does vary from person to person.
User avatar #27 - henryfordthegod (07/10/2013) [-]
Robot women

are from my army
 Friends (0)