I am the Patriarchy

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

LesMis - you seem like you have a pretty good grasp of the English language - and yet you don't seem to understand what the word feminist means. Surely the concept of male feminists is not something you're unable to comprehend - how amusing is it that you'd rather appear ignorant for a moment and hope that moment passes quickly so you can make a point you can't really defend and have this thread take the course you set for it?

Actually my mother was a hardline feminist. I grew up with it during the time the movement had some credibility. So yes your conjecture, what I imagine is clouded by a typical knee-jerk response, or perhaps some sort of half-baked white-knight sensibility of seeing a damsel in distress, is rather comical. It seems our amusement goes both ways.

While I have some doubts that the scene you described in the OP happened exactly the way you said it did, I have to say that the second thing that convinced me there's nothing here to discuss is this:

For shame...You are no feminist - that much is true. But - neither are you a gentleman

Yes please have your doubts. Although they are entirely unfounded, you have the right of ignorance as does everyone. And I do love a good internet diagnosis of my problems when I can get one. People seem to know much about people around here they’ve never met. Grasping for straws is more common than I might have expected.

Yes I’m not a feminist. I don’t see one gender as the weaker sex. I would rather see equal rights for 100% of the population, rather than half….For shame indeed.

I believe in taking responsibility for your beliefs, philosophies - ethics and being true to your own self. It's about integrity

If you are the sort of person that would let a door slam on someone because you were miffed - it seems to me you're the sort of person that doesn't do things because they're the right thing to do: you do them for effect

I held the door open for her until she spoke her concerns and which I immediately obliged. If you’re the sort of person that condemns another for doing that then by God you might need to get out more. Oh but I forgot: damsel being oppressed. I don’t think I need to point out who here is persisting gender roles.

So, yes - coming or going he's shown his true nature. He doesn't have to support feminist ideals (that he clearly doesn't understand anyhow), but - he's demonstrated (if what he's said is true) that he's childish and petty at best, calculating and manipulative at the other end of the spectrum

Ah the good old internet diagnosis once again. What a display of your wounds, Spiramira! Not only is my honesty in question, but so is my true nature, something you’ve never witnessed outside your own vivid imagination. I’m beginning to wonder what I look like up there.

It’s a shame I didn’t have such a gentleman as yourself with me; you would’ve make an excellent door stop for the poor woman, since you seem so keen on being walked all over by her stiletto’d heels.

In the meantime, let's watch the hilarity of men's vs. woman's rights.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually my mother was a hardline feminist. I grew up with it during the time the movement had some credibility.

What made it credible?

Yes I’m not a feminist. I don’t see one gender as the weaker sex. I would rather see equal rights for 100% of the population, rather than half….For shame indeed.

Why, LesMis - this makes you an excellent feminist! You don't really know what it means - do you? Not even after having grown up under a hard-line feminist - and a credible one at that

Interesting...

If you’re the sort of person that condemns another for doing that then by God you might need to get out more.

While I probably could stand to get out more, it wouldn't change my mind - I don't condemn you for that - but it sure doesn't earn my respect. If, as you suggested earlier - you would hold open the door for anyone, because this is what people do - why let it slam directly on her - even if she did protest?

Sorry - but that was not cool

Oh but I forgot: damsel being oppressed. I don’t think I need to point out who here is persisting gender roles.

No! You really don't! :-) Where on earth are you getting this damsel in distress nonsense if you're not picking it out of your own batch of go to cliches? This is about you letting a door slam on a stranger when you just as easily could have held it. This is not the behavior of a gentleman, or gentle-person if you prefer

Damsel in distress... :-) I'll tell you who's in distress - and it ain't no damned damsel :-)

It’s a shame I didn’t have such a gentleman as yourself with me; you would’ve make an excellent door stop for the poor woman, since you seem so keen on being walked all over by her stiletto’d heels.

Ah, so there it is: walked all over by her stiletto heels... I want to call Mommy Issues, but I'm wondering if you have a sense of humor? :-)

LesMis - I am a pretty girly girl. And a feminist. I both genuinely like and respect men

(No stilettos though - sorry to disappoint)

:-)

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I came to this same conclusion. I also laughed out loud at myself for arguing with an angry man about what feminism is! LOL For what it's worth, Les Mis, I think the title of your post is very correct. You are advancing and supporting the patriarchy.

Your reply confirms the point he was making in the opening post.

It's ironic that feminists duck out of a discussion because men will not be subordinate to their belief system.

But hey: I guess if the heat's too hot in the kitchen, then one should not attempt to cook!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

It's ironic that feminists duck out of a discussion because men will not be subordinate to their belief system.

Men will not be subordinate? !!!

:-)

I could cry I'm laughing so hard -

Please, tell me so I can know too - what is the feminist belief system?

I find it interesting that the OP chose to take the "physical" approach with his anger (by allowing the door to slam on the person), rather than choosing to take the "intellectual" approach by utilizing his vocal cords instead.

A simple statement such as: "I held the door open out of common courtesy for a fellow human being. It had nothing to do with your gender."

This type of intellectual communicative approach to an angering situation would have accomplished a lot more by way of planting some food for thought into the person who made an erroneous assumption of the OP's actions.

Instead, the only thing he accomplished was to reinforce this woman's mistaken assumption that the male gender is an ape still swinging from the trees and has yet to learn human-evolved "anger management" skills.



Congratulations on your failure to communicate.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Of course you’re a feminist! Why else would common decency go out the window? Why else would you judge and slander a person you’ve never met? Also of course: my aversion to being called names is a lack of sense of humour on my part, and has nothing to do with your lack of humour. A feminist taking responsibility for her own actions just wouldn’t fit the bill. Hypocrisy and double-standards is a currency that passes through all hands.

That being said, Spira, there is no one I’d rather sling mud with. Wit and irony is rare and I can’t say I don’t value and respect your judgement. You’re enjoyable to pass the time reading. If you’ll give me the time, maybe we can turn this into a discussion after all. Since you’ve raised your ideological flags, maybe you can help us with the short-end of the gender stick to understand a few things.

1. First, perhaps a man shouldn’t attempt to define feminism. We could never expect an ideology concerned with equal rights to allow any man to do so. So far I’ve got “Feminism is about equal rights”. But that would entail feminism is about both woman’s and men’s rights. I don’t see that as the case, and is perhaps an unwarranted dogma. What’s your take?

2. Second, if feminism is about woman’s rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to men. What rights do I have that is the result of not an oligarchy, not a theocracy, and not a corrupt political movement, but a patriarchy, that you do not?

2. Third, a thought experiment. If you were in my position, and during a simple act of humanity a man said “I don’t need a woman to hold the door open me.” Would a feminist such as yourself really resort to the judeo-christian stock-phrase “turn the other check”?

a reply to: CranialSponge

Congratulations on your failure to communicate.

You've come to the right thread!

Bunch of swinging monkeys in here.

At least we know how you see men.

Congrats on your sexism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A star for that one. Nice

:-)

See? Humor - it makes everything better

But you'll have to wait for a reply I'm afraid - I am out of here for tonight

Night LesMis

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

But you'll have to wait for a reply I'm afraid - I am out of here for tonight

I expect it.

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
The reality is that beta males and below are the FAVORITE target of oppression by these males in power. Those of us males who don't have power or net worth or influence are the slaves of the patriarchy. So many of us males who lack these things have no choice but to be under the thumb of our alpha male masters. And the biggest issue here is that we are LOWER on the ladder than you ladies! Think about it! You ladies have more power than any low ranking male out there. We are the most abused, least thought of, least cared for demographic on earth! But of course you ladies don't give a damn about anyone's plight but your own. Which is where this thread came from if I had to guess.

Elites even don't want to fXXk beta males.I would like call it elites ,not alpha male,because there's female elites.It's all about class and money in capitalist society.

OP,did you noticed a particular gender love to force people join into their group?
Less physical strength,survival strategy:force others to work for themselves,reduce the risk.
^I find it's disgusting.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
I find it interesting that the OP chose to take the "physical" approach with his anger (by allowing the door to slam on the person), rather than choosing to take the "intellectual" approach by utilizing his vocal cords instead.

A simple statement such as: "I held the door open out of common courtesy for a fellow human being. It had nothing to do with your gender."

This type of intellectual communicative approach to an angering situation would have accomplished a lot more by way of planting some food for thought into the person who made an erroneous assumption of the OP's actions.

Instead, the only thing he accomplished was to reinforce this woman's mistaken assumption that the male gender is an ape still swinging from the trees and has yet to learn human-evolved "anger management" skills.



Congratulations on your failure to communicate.

I think the lady got his message loud and clear, what exactly was he failing to communicate?

Using language does not indicate any use of the intellect . . . if this were posted on some Feme website there would be howls of "mansplaining" and "misogyny" and "sexual assault."

I have linked to multiple sources of Feminist literature where it is clearly outlined that truth is not the goal, but rather establishing a narrative to reinforce behaviors in men.

Similar to this; DARPA looking to master propaganda via 'Narrative Networks'
phys.org...

What I am really surprised about is that the OP encountered such a 'sensitive flower' outside of a university campus or music festival. Honestly that sort of unbridled 'altruism' is truly rare in the real world where people have to make compromises to provide for themselves. Sometimes you have to laugh at the situations in which people choose to make a stand.

-FBB

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At least we know how you see men.

Congrats on your sexism.

Congratulations on your lack of reading comprehension because these were my exact words:

by way of planting some food for thought into the person who made an erroneous assumption of the OP's actions

and

the only thing he accomplished was to reinforce this woman's mistaken assumption that the male gender is an ape still swinging from the trees

… your quickness to defend and attack, apparently caused you to miss key components of my post.

Communication breakdown, as they say.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I think the lady got his message loud and clear, what exactly was he failing to communicate?

Using language does not indicate any use of the intellect . . .

Your absolutely right.

The next time someone says something stupid to me, I'm going to just stick my foot out and trip them.

A far more superior resolution than some silly, useless verbal exchange.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I think the lady got his message loud and clear, what exactly was he failing to communicate?

Using language does not indicate any use of the intellect . . .

Your absolutely right.

The next time someone says something stupid to me, I'm going to just stick my foot out and trip them.

A far more superior resolution than some silly, useless verbal exchange.

Superiority ehh?

OP merely stopped holding the door for the lady because she was offended by it, how is that at all related to you assaulting/harassing someone for saying something offensive to you?

Maybe you can provide the link to the whole concept I have been asking for evidence of. I am curious if you have links to any studies, literature, or empirical evidence of the Feminist doctrine concerning 'cat calls' and 'door holding' being an act of dominance/oppression of women. So far I have asked two others who presented this topic and received no response.

Today on my uni campus there was a flock of feminists outraged at people protesting their planned parenthood convention (yes, it was literally a convention). They were calling police saying they were being sexually and verbally harassed, calling the student affairs office calling for censorship and screaming obscenities in the protestors faces. This 'protest' was five 'bros' holding admittedly offensive signs but saying nothing unless approached. I sat there laughing at the ludicrous display of free speech, but heard a lot of language similar to yours.

Specifically language denigrating the humanity of men and touting your own beliefs as intellectually enlightened. It really comes across as the smug arrogance of a cult. Especially when the movement supposedly touts the importance of empathy and seeing things from others perspectives.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I'm actually completely shocked and boggled by the responses by both you and LesMisanthrope in this thread.

I've always considered both of you to be somewhat "up there" on the intelligence scale based on both of your posting histories, and held a sense of respect towards you both because of it.

But apparently, when it comes to "the war of the sexes", the two of you lose all sense of logic and reasoning and have displayed it quite clearly in this thread.

FBB, your entire post above makes automatic assumptions of my being some kind of "feminist" because I'm the owner of a vagina and just so happened to come into this thread to point out Les Mis's illogical reaction (allowing a door to slam on someone risking potential physical injury) to someone else's illogical reaction (the woman's comment he describes in his story).

Two wrongs don't make a right, gentlemen.

The both of you are actually attempting to justify the slamming of a door on another human being... an action/reaction that had the potential to cause physical harm to said person, for crying out loud !

All because your anger and dislike for a certain group of people is blinding your ability to logic and reason, from what I can see thus far.



The two of you are actually falling into the same unreasonable and ridiculous category these feminazi's are in.

a reply to: CranialSponge

So I take that as a no, but thanks for the holier than thou lecture.

I just have to laugh at the "righteous" indignation which then results in shaming. I am more interested in the increasing trend of controlling narratives while repeating keywords. The entire populace is becoming politicians while I am asking for actual data and literature.

The cognitive dissonance in people is getting out of control.

I do have some sympathy for OP as I have had to put up with a lot of 'Feme' BS that is only allowed because it gets the support of interest groups terrified of loosing the attention of the populace.

Its too bad you lost respect, but I have never posted on this site to get respect or approval.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So I take that as a no, but thanks for the holier than thou lecture.

[snip]

The entire populace is becoming politicians while I am asking for actual data and literature.

Any particular reason why you asked me, specifically, to produce data and literature on this feminist stuff ?

Because nowhere in my posts did I argue anything on this feminist thing, whatsoever.

My post was completely 100% all about pointing Les Mis to his illogical reaction to an anger inducing situation.



You've just made my case in point about the loss of logic, reason, and reading comprehension.

If that to you is "holier than thou", then so be it.

Ad hominems get you nowhere.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Well I asked you because the other two did not answer and you brought up the concept of intellectual superiority while using a similar pattern of speech and narrative.

I figured why not ask since you are posting in a similar fashion.

Have you given any thought to the angry verbiage of your own posts? It would be an example of the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: CranialSponge

Well I asked you because the other two did not answer and you brought up the concept of intellectual superiority while using a similar pattern of speech and narrative.

I figured why not ask since you are posting in a similar fashion.

Have you given any thought to the angry verbiage of your own posts? It would be an example of the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.

-FBB

Let's be honest here.

You automatically assumed me to be one of these "feminazis" because I stepped into the thread. There's no other reason why you would ask me to produce data and literature on that particular subject otherwise.

Why ? Because I made no claim to the concept of "intellectual superiority" of either sex in the OP's situation. Your labelling it as such is hyperbolic at best.


Angry ?
Not a chance.

Shocked ?
Absolutely.

Which was specifically the word I chose to use in my post - shocked, not angry. No need for you to try to read between the lines assuming my thought processes. I described them quite clearly in my post. Nothing more, nothing less.