Gender roles are evil and sexist, except when men think they are women

originally posted by: theantediluvian
To hell with this. It's insulting and condescending for you to say "SJW" in each and every post and I don't appreciate it. I have considered, informed opinions that aren't spoon fed to me by the media. If I'm going to be called names for my political views then I don't feel any need to refrain from doing the same.

Every time I read "SJW", I'm responding with "stupid inbred bigot douchebag."

Hmm, emotional reasoning will lead you to do that.

SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior — while you might take offence to the implications of those using the term, there is nothing vulgar or inherently insulting about the acronym or words that make it up.

SIBD (stupid inbred bigot douchebag) however is kind of directly derogatory as well as having the implied insult.

The moral of this reply? Don't utilise emotional reasoning on an intellectual discussion forum.

a reply to: theantediluvian surely the opposite of SJWs is social injustice instigators kind of rings true. It seems a lot of Americans norms and values haven't progressed since stepping off the mayflower with the other puritans.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Hmm, emotional reasoning will lead you to do that.

Blah blah blah? I believe that's a fitting response because it certainly seems to me that to justify your condescending demeanor, you are simply saying things that you believe make you sound knowledgeable. Therefore, I deemed it appropriate to respond in kind.

SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior — while you might take offence to the implications of those using the term, there is nothing vulgar or inherently insulting about the acronym or words that make it up.

SIBD (stupid inbred bigot douchebag) however is kind of directly derogatory as well as having the implied insult.

That's not even an interesting argument. The degrees to which words are insulting or vulgar are both subjective and relative. Even if this weren't the case, the implication would not somehow be the sum of the individual words' degrees of either.

To illustrate the above, I ask you to consider the words wife and mother.

I imagine that if you were to ask most people, they would say that neither of these words are by themselves either vulgar or insulting. Now let's use them in two nearly identical statements:

"You have intimate relations with your wife."
"You have intimate relations with your sister."

The moral of this reply? Don't utilise emotional reasoning on an intellectual discussion forum.

You're wasting your poorly considered admonishments on me but you do seem to have found a receptive audience among the intellectually bereft political parrots so it's not a complete loss I suppose.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Blah blah blah? I believe that's a fitting response because it certainly seems to me that to justify your condescending demeanor, you are simply saying things that you believe make you sound knowledgeable. Therefore, I deemed it appropriate to respond in kind.

Condescending demeanor? Maybe you should revise your understanding of both words before using them again. Whether I am knowledgeable or not is besides the point. I can detect emotional reasoning and your post before was saturated in it.

That's not even an interesting argument. The degrees to which words are insulting or vulgar are both subjective and relative. Even if this weren't the case, the implication would not somehow be the sum of the individual words' degrees of either.

Not all arguments that are accurate are automatically interesting.

To illustrate the above, I ask you to consider the words wife and mother.

I imagine that if you were to ask most people, they would say that neither of these words are by themselves either vulgar or insulting. Now let's use them in two nearly identical statements:

"You have intimate relations with your wife."
"You have intimate relations with your sister."

I don't doubt that context is critical, I wasn't dismissing that. What I was implying is that you were finding offence from a comment that was directed at a group of people, not yourself personally, for the sake of finding offence itself.

I agree that finding something offensive or vulgar is a subjective experience, but that does not mean people cannot be guilty of unreasonably striving to find offence when none was directed at them in the first place.

You're wasting your poorly considered admonishments on me but you do seem to have found a receptive audience among the intellectually bereft political parrots so it's not a complete loss I suppose.

I must admit, that last sentence made me laugh.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

It seems a lot of Americans norms and values haven't progressed since stepping off the mayflower with the other puritans.

It does in fact seem to be the case with some folks who cannot come to terms with other peoples' hard fought freedoms. I do wonder however, just how happy these same people would be if they actually got what they believe they want.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I tried responding with libtard every time someone referred to me as a right wing nutter. That didn't work out too well for me.

Who is engineering and suppressing you? If you are letting people do that then it's just showing a weakness. Speak how you feel but nothing ever constructive will come out of these debates when everyone that's not a Trump supporter is an automatic sjw. Can you show some examples of being suppressed and engineered so I know who to avoid in the threads here on ATS?

originally posted by: thinline
IMHO the reason Trump has so much support is because if the title of the post

SJW, screem and moan that gender roles are sexist and evil. They will march, protest, and ban something they think crossed their ever changing line

Yet, if a guy thinks he is a women, and follows the 'trappings' of the 'tyipical' female gender: long hair, make up, clothing, and so on

Not only is it acceptable, it's perfectly normal and should be celebrated.

The whole of the leftist position is riddled with contradictions.

The Federalist blog had a good piece on it, but I can't find it right now. Maybe I'll chase it down this afternoon, but it goes on and on with one contradiction after another.

I can detect emotional reasoning and your post before was saturated in it.

I imagine this said in a cold metallic robot voice...*Does not compute, does not compute*

a reply to: thinline

Sexism would be insisting that people remain rigidly within the lines of constructed norms that society assigned to genders. These roles are fine, the resistance is to the notion that these roles belong to one gender or the other.

It's not nearly as complex nor convoluted as it's made out to be and certainly not sinister or deviant.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

LOL.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we are all robots trapped in a predetermined vacuum where our thoughts, behaviours and actions are not truly representative of who we really are. But that is for another thread.

originally posted by: thinline
IMHO the reason Trump has so much support is because if the title of the post

SJW, screem and moan that gender roles are sexist and evil. They will march, protest, and ban something they think crossed their ever changing line

Yet, if a guy thinks he is a women, and follows the 'trappings' of the 'tyipical' female gender: long hair, make up, clothing, and so on

Not only is it acceptable, it's perfectly normal and should be celebrated.

Oooh! Oooh! This is an easy one. The difference is in one case someone is saying "You should be in this role because you are a woman!" in the other case it's someone saying "I am choosing this role because I am a woman." You see the difference there? Personal choice instead of cultural pressure?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: theantediluvian

Respond how you like, and you being triggered is quite humorous, do you have any retort for my points? Social justice progressives are indeed fighting for the dissolution of gender roles, which was neatly formed into a coherent thought by the poster I responded to. I don't have a problem with anyone's choices or gender roles, but I do have a problem with being engineered and suppressed into thinking a certain way under the pretentious rosy guise of progress. In other words if I like having a wife in the kitchen and she enjoys cooking for me, do not attempt to dissolve that by calling it misogynistic, or engineering our children into believing gender roles are inherently wrong.

Well spoken on both your posts. And my wife of nearly 40 years now would totally agree
Peace.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

It seems a lot of Americans norms and values haven't progressed since stepping off the mayflower with the other puritans.

I hope you don't mind if I use that.

@OP: "Gender roles" run much deeper than changing ones appearance and mannerisms, and I think that's what the "SJW's" are referring to when they bitch about those roles being evil.

If you happen to be a young woman who actually looks like one (clothes, body type, etc), other American women try to make you feel like a superficial airhead who's setting women's rights back. It's as though they have to believe that to feel good about themselves. Every time I go back to the states it's worse than before. All the crap about RealWomen™ and StrongWomen™ seems more about shaming than empowering. It bothers me, not that some men like to cross dress (fine with me), but that those same women applaud when men adopt those stereotypical feminine traits to feel like a woman. Is that stuff, or isn't it, part of being a woman? Not that all females need to be feminine, but women are absolutely shamed for it now (by other women) while it's ok for men. It's backwards.

I think this is partly why so many young people are bi, gay, trans these days. Male is almost always attracted to female, and vice versa. But now, men aren't masculine and women aren't feminine, so people don't know what that even feels like. When the genders are just mimicking each other, of course it leads to confusion. I see a real difference between older people who are gay because that's just who they are in every fibre of their being, and the newer, social media kids who are pretty much all at least bi. Two entirely different life forms.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TechniXcality

You have formed the logical conclusion to the insanity being pushed by the SJW left and it's quite unsettling, how would you go about forcing people to relinquish their ideas of archetypical gender roles?

To hell with this. It's insulting and condescending for you to say "SJW" in each and every post and I don't appreciate it. I have considered, informed opinions that aren't spoon fed to me by the media. If I'm going to be called names for my political views then I don't feel any need to refrain from doing the same.

Every time I read "SJW", I'm responding with "stupid inbred bigot douchebag."

What theantediluvian is really saying:

You're being mean and I don't wike it! So I'm gonna call you names right back you stupid inbred bigot douchebag meany! Hmmph!