Also I quite like ‘arrogant bovine’ as an insult - its got a cute little ring to it. Maybe I should use it as a name… It suggests placidity with the potential to trample over flimsy argument…

son of the suns said:

agentofdesire, no one’s here to please you, you arrogant bovine.

I’m sorry Western societies haven’t been castrated enough to sexually please you, maybe you haven’t got a big enough cock yet or maybe you’re just a soulless frigid bitch.

Irregardless, you cunt’s social engineering is coming to an end.

Sorry, did I say something a bit close to the bone?

I think having the guts to hug your mom after all this whining makes you stronger.

Go on, order her a bouquet of flowers while your at it.

Anger gives you focus.. makes you stronger.

wow. You are all really angry men!

The logical conclusion is therefore the hatred of women leads to a life of anger and frustration.

Why don’t you all call your mothers, tell them you love them and maybe you’ll feel all the better for it.

agentofdesire, no one’s here to please you, you arrogant bovine.

I’m sorry Western societies haven’t been castrated enough to sexually please you, maybe you haven’t got a big enough cock yet or maybe you’re just a soulless frigid bitch.

Irregardless, you cunt’s social engineering is coming to an end.

I’ll take that as a yes then.

I merely do not understand how a man that masters dick bears a child.

Is this related to the women hating sex?

If it is, well it explains much because I can’t imagine women enjoying sex with homosexual men either.

Is it really that hard to read in between the lines?

you are stupid.

I figured this kind of rhetorical and unsupported nonsense was what your arguments were being reduced to.

only a fool presents an argument and begs those he opposes do no take part in it.

seriously though, why are you named after the son of someone who masters dick?

Commander Scott said:

I think that the premise that men oppress women for the benefit of other men is fundamentally flawed. It seems to be the by-product of philosophical speculation within the domain of the social sciences, rather than based on any rigorously oriented scientific methodology. Although I doubt the veracity of the foregoing premise, I do believe there is considerable empirical and statistical evidence pointing to a tremendous amount of oppression being exerted by women over other women. In fact, it is quite possible to assert that women have been oppressed; except that women have historically oppressed other women, as well as many men, through the use of both her sexuality and reproductive biology.
Sexual relations between both genders functions as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the woman offers both her womb and vagina as a means of receiving such benefits as money, status, power and commitment. Sex would be used as a means of economic exchange at a going marketable rate that most women would accept as adequate compensation for the giving of sexual favours. Due to the fact that men compete for women as a scarce commodity within the marketplace of heterosexual transactions, women are inevitably driven to possess little desire for any particular sexual relationship itself given the superabundance of men she is able to choose from; this enables her to exert a considerable amount of influence over the relationship by coercing the man to provide her with resources that will persuade her to have sex with him. Women who would offer sex readily, without participating within the process of sexual negotiation based on socio-economic exchange would readily invoke the hostility of most women by making the service of copulation readily accessible to men; by lowering the costs of sex, the ‘loose’ woman is a threat to most women because she undercuts the economic bargaining power of women within heterosexual transactions and reduces her ability to maneuvre her way into positions of power in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance. As many evolutionary psychologists have noted repeatedly, it should come as no surprise that women have a considerably greater hostility towards pornography and prostitution than men do. In a survey conducted by Klassen et al. (1989), 69% of women, as opposed to 45% of men were likely to disapprove of prostitution. In fact, female opposition to both prostitution and pornography is of long-standing duration. According to Walkowitz (1980), the anti-prostitution and smut campaigns of the nineteenth century were largely participated in by women.
The laws which have formed the basis of every society that has ever existed has been aimed primarily at controlling men and not women. Men are arrested for all manner of crimes at a much greater magnitude than women are. Baumeister (2002) says that in 1998, 92% of all arrests for sex crimes involved men and the other 8% of arrests would involve women. The only exception to the rule would be prostitution and as we see from Walkowitz, much anti-prostituion legislation was put in place by means of direct female agitation.
In addition, it is women and only women who have sanctioned the horrific practice of mutilating the bodies of pre-pubescent females; a notable example of such would be the practice of genital subincision and infibulation or female genital circumcision. According to researcher H. Lightfoot-Klein (1989), the decision as to which daughter was to be circumcised was determined exclusively by the maternal figures of the household and that the operation is performed solely by women. Lightfoot-Klein also notes that girls who refuse to allow themselves to be genitally circumcised are routinely harassed and socially ostracized by other girls. Another researcher, A.A. Shandall (1967, 1979), found, after a statistical analysis of hundreds of surveys submitted in the region of northeastern Africa, that most men actually prefer wives who have not undergone the surgery and that female circumcision is not conducive to male sexual pleasure.
The notion of culture and socialization functioning as the primary agents behind sexual differentiation in anatomical sex and gender roles really invokes the argument of infinite third man regression; if we are socialized by society than what socializes the basic infrastructure around which the dominant social institutions gravitate? Who or what socializes society? The division of labour between men and women is largely a product of neuro-endocrinological and physiological differentiation between both genders, resulting in sexual dimorphism in such traits as physical strength and intelligence. Every society that has ever existed has been a patriarchy dominated by men; there has never been a society ruled by women. In spite of enormous cross-cultural variation between many societies, the sexual physiological differentiation between men and women is the same in all societies. The universality of patriarchy on an anthropological level, as well as the androgenic hormonalization of the male central nervous system during embryological development producing significantly higher levels of male aggression and motivation, would make the existence of male patriarchal dominance physiologically inevitable.
Thus, subjecting male-female relations to a Marxist-Leninist sociological analysis along class lines is clearly illogical. The members of both groups possess the same hormones, albeit in vastly different quantities, and none can truly be in any dialectical antagonism to the other because a certain symbiosis between both sexes is necessary for the perpetuation of the human species. In the final analysis, the concept of sex is really a synthesis of both biological and socio-cultural factors; the social organization of human interactions is really an instance of behavioural conformation to a limited set of biological parameters that determine our existence as living organisms.

You say that men oppress women for the benefit of other men. I’m sorry but I don’t really believe that there is that much male solidarity underpinning it. I think men are in a very insecure space of having to assert their dominance irrespective of whether overt competition is in an individual man’s nature or not. If a sensitive/feeling man wishes to get a piece of the cake he is forced to play by the rules of the alpha male who defines them. The ‘alpha male’ is essentially self centred. The alpha male doesn’t give a shit about other men, and women are even lower down the scale of usefulness to him as they have less economic power. It is the alpha males that have defined the status quo and that oppresses everyone.
As for prostitution and pornography etc. The reason why I despise it is not because there is a loose woman deviating from the ‘feminine code’ its because I find the whole blurring of sex and sexuality - the most profound and important part of our humanity - blurring it with money and power - well it’s just totally distasteful.
I also despise all the pressure on women to only ‘put out’ to those men that are upheld to be sexually desirable because they fit certain lame superficial criteria. I wish women would just sleep with the men that actually genuinely turn them on. I agree that female sexuality in an assertive sense has been villified historically by both women and men and it is totally depressing. Women don’t even know what gets them going. They’ve been castrated. So if all this pruning of female sexuality was to stop, men would get a whole lot more sex. However porn and prostitution etc, is nothing to do with female sexuality, its all about male fantasy and as long as male fantasy dominates the sexual landscape there can’t be much real progress in freeing women as sexual beings.
So guys..what are you going to do about that?

Commander Scott said:

I think that the premise that men oppress women for the benefit of other men is fundamentally flawed. It seems to be the by-product of philosophical speculation within the domain of the social sciences, rather than based on any rigorously oriented scientific methodology. Although I doubt the veracity of the foregoing premise, I do believe there is considerable empirical and statistical evidence pointing to a tremendous amount of oppression being exerted by women over other women. In fact, it is quite possible to assert that women have been oppressed; except that women have historically oppressed other women, as well as many men, through the use of both her sexuality and reproductive biology.
Sexual relations between both genders functions as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the woman offers both her womb and vagina as a means of receiving such benefits as money, status, power and commitment. Sex would be used as a means of economic exchange at a going marketable rate that most women would accept as adequate compensation for the giving of sexual favours. Due to the fact that men compete for women as a scarce commodity within the marketplace of heterosexual transactions, women are inevitably driven to possess little desire for any particular sexual relationship itself given the superabundance of men she is able to choose from; this enables her to exert a considerable amount of influence over the relationship by coercing the man to provide her with resources that will persuade her to have sex with him. Women who would offer sex readily, without participating within the process of sexual negotiation based on socio-economic exchange would readily invoke the hostility of most women by making the service of copulation readily accessible to men; by lowering the costs of sex, the ‘loose’ woman is a threat to most women because she undercuts the economic bargaining power of women within heterosexual transactions and reduces her ability to maneuvre her way into positions of power in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance. As many evolutionary psychologists have noted repeatedly, it should come as no surprise that women have a considerably greater hostility towards pornography and prostitution than men do. In a survey conducted by Klassen et al. (1989), 69% of women, as opposed to 45% of men were likely to disapprove of prostitution. In fact, female opposition to both prostitution and pornography is of long-standing duration. According to Walkowitz (1980), the anti-prostitution and smut campaigns of the nineteenth century were largely participated in by women.
The laws which have formed the basis of every society that has ever existed has been aimed primarily at controlling men and not women. Men are arrested for all manner of crimes at a much greater magnitude than women are. Baumeister (2002) says that in 1998, 92% of all arrests for sex crimes involved men and the other 8% of arrests would involve women. The only exception to the rule would be prostitution and as we see from Walkowitz, much anti-prostituion legislation was put in place by means of direct female agitation.
In addition, it is women and only women who have sanctioned the horrific practice of mutilating the bodies of pre-pubescent females; a notable example of such would be the practice of genital subincision and infibulation or female genital circumcision. According to researcher H. Lightfoot-Klein (1989), the decision as to which daughter was to be circumcised was determined exclusively by the maternal figures of the household and that the operation is performed solely by women. Lightfoot-Klein also notes that girls who refuse to allow themselves to be genitally circumcised are routinely harassed and socially ostracized by other girls. Another researcher, A.A. Shandall (1967, 1979), found, after a statistical analysis of hundreds of surveys submitted in the region of northeastern Africa, that most men actually prefer wives who have not undergone the surgery and that female circumcision is not conducive to male sexual pleasure.
The notion of culture and socialization functioning as the primary agents behind sexual differentiation in anatomical sex and gender roles really invokes the argument of infinite third man regression; if we are socialized by society than what socializes the basic infrastructure around which the dominant social institutions gravitate? Who or what socializes society? The division of labour between men and women is largely a product of neuro-endocrinological and physiological differentiation between both genders, resulting in sexual dimorphism in such traits as physical strength and intelligence. Every society that has ever existed has been a patriarchy dominated by men; there has never been a society ruled by women. In spite of enormous cross-cultural variation between many societies, the sexual physiological differentiation between men and women is the same in all societies. The universality of patriarchy on an anthropological level, as well as the androgenic hormonalization of the male central nervous system during embryological development producing significantly higher levels of male aggression and motivation, would make the existence of male patriarchal dominance physiologically inevitable.
Thus, subjecting male-female relations to a Marxist-Leninist sociological analysis along class lines is clearly illogical. The members of both groups possess the same hormones, albeit in vastly different quantities, and none can truly be in any dialectical antagonism to the other because a certain symbiosis between both sexes is necessary for the perpetuation of the human species. In the final analysis, the concept of sex is really a synthesis of both biological and socio-cultural factors; the social organization of human interactions is really an instance of behavioural conformation to a limited set of biological parameters that determine our existence as living organisms.

Anglo-American women have long harboured a detestation of women from less puritanical cultures, particularly oriental women. This surely relates to the fact that such women greatly increase the availability of sex, since the sexual act for them has no pivotal value as an arbiter of socio-sexual status. Anglo-American feminism has from the very first exhibited anti-Asiatic racism (an antipathy that emerged first in the 19th Century), which finds full expression today in IMBRA, a feminist assault on the right of Anglo-American men to select mates from outside the Anglosphere. All this relates to Adam Smith’s core economic dictum, that scarcity increases value. Anglo-American women derive all power from regulating the supply of sex; allowing Anglo-American men ready access to alternative sexual sources like the far east would utterly strip Anglo-American women of their power base, which explains their rabid racism and active resistance to the burgeoning cult of the oriental bride (‘Gook Whores’) among Anglo-American men.

But what business is it of theirs? They don’t own anybody.

son of the suns said:

Passive solutions to social diseases are uneffective.

Yes I know, it was more or less a joke. However, I can’t see Feminism lasting much longer this century, girls bought up today don’t see themselves being oppressed so they don’t actually care about feminism. Only divorced mothers and women who have been feminists in the past bother. Besides, the last thing we want when things like global warming comes around the corners is for feminists to keep whining that they’re not the centre of the fucking universe.

I think that the premise that men oppress women for the benefit of other men is fundamentally flawed. It seems to be the by-product of philosophical speculation within the domain of the social sciences, rather than based on any rigorously oriented scientific methodology. Although I doubt the veracity of the foregoing premise, I do believe there is considerable empirical and statistical evidence pointing to a tremendous amount of oppression being exerted by women over other women. In fact, it is quite possible to assert that women have been oppressed; except that women have historically oppressed other women, as well as many men, through the use of both her sexuality and reproductive biology.
Sexual relations between both genders functions as a means of socio-economic exchange by which the woman offers both her womb and vagina as a means of receiving such benefits as money, status, power and commitment. Sex would be used as a means of economic exchange at a going marketable rate that most women would accept as adequate compensation for the giving of sexual favours. Due to the fact that men compete for women as a scarce commodity within the marketplace of heterosexual transactions, women are inevitably driven to possess little desire for any particular sexual relationship itself given the superabundance of men she is able to choose from; this enables her to exert a considerable amount of influence over the relationship by coercing the man to provide her with resources that will persuade her to have sex with him. Women who would offer sex readily, without participating within the process of sexual negotiation based on socio-economic exchange would readily invoke the hostility of most women by making the service of copulation readily accessible to men; by lowering the costs of sex, the ‘loose’ woman is a threat to most women because she undercuts the economic bargaining power of women within heterosexual transactions and reduces her ability to maneuvre her way into positions of power in a world characterized by male patriarchal dominance. As many evolutionary psychologists have noted repeatedly, it should come as no surprise that women have a considerably greater hostility towards pornography and prostitution than men do. In a survey conducted by Klassen et al. (1989), 69% of women, as opposed to 45% of men were likely to disapprove of prostitution. In fact, female opposition to both prostitution and pornography is of long-standing duration. According to Walkowitz (1980), the anti-prostitution and smut campaigns of the nineteenth century were largely participated in by women.
The laws which have formed the basis of every society that has ever existed has been aimed primarily at controlling men and not women. Men are arrested for all manner of crimes at a much greater magnitude than women are. Baumeister (2002) says that in 1998, 92% of all arrests for sex crimes involved men and the other 8% of arrests would involve women. The only exception to the rule would be prostitution and as we see from Walkowitz, much anti-prostituion legislation was put in place by means of direct female agitation.
In addition, it is women and only women who have sanctioned the horrific practice of mutilating the bodies of pre-pubescent females; a notable example of such would be the practice of genital subincision and infibulation or female genital circumcision. According to researcher H. Lightfoot-Klein (1989), the decision as to which daughter was to be circumcised was determined exclusively by the maternal figures of the household and that the operation is performed solely by women. Lightfoot-Klein also notes that girls who refuse to allow themselves to be genitally circumcised are routinely harassed and socially ostracized by other girls. Another researcher, A.A. Shandall (1967, 1979), found, after a statistical analysis of hundreds of surveys submitted in the region of northeastern Africa, that most men actually prefer wives who have not undergone the surgery and that female circumcision is not conducive to male sexual pleasure.
The notion of culture and socialization functioning as the primary agents behind sexual differentiation in anatomical sex and gender roles really invokes the argument of infinite third man regression; if we are socialized by society than what socializes the basic infrastructure around which the dominant social institutions gravitate? Who or what socializes society? The division of labour between men and women is largely a product of neuro-endocrinological and physiological differentiation between both genders, resulting in sexual dimorphism in such traits as physical strength and intelligence. Every society that has ever existed has been a patriarchy dominated by men; there has never been a society ruled by women. In spite of enormous cross-cultural variation between many societies, the sexual physiological differentiation between men and women is the same in all societies. The universality of patriarchy on an anthropological level, as well as the androgenic hormonalization of the male central nervous system during embryological development producing significantly higher levels of male aggression and motivation, would make the existence of male patriarchal dominance physiologically inevitable.
Thus, subjecting male-female relations to a Marxist-Leninist sociological analysis along class lines is clearly illogical. The members of both groups possess the same hormones, albeit in vastly different quantities, and none can truly be in any dialectical antagonism to the other because a certain symbiosis between both sexes is necessary for the perpetuation of the human species. In the final analysis, the concept of sex is really a synthesis of both biological and socio-cultural factors; the social organization of human interactions is really an instance of behavioural conformation to a limited set of biological parameters that determine our existence as living organisms.

Passive solutions to social diseases are uneffective.

How to destroy feminism: Don’t marry feminists - I mean they don’t really believe in marriage anyway so it can’t be too hard - That way natural selection will work against that which drags down the world and eliminate those worthless bitches.

Anthony said:

I just wanted to say, men who are against feminism don’t hate women, as someone here suggested. I hate feminism, and I love women. I hate feminism because it is so contradictory it falls apart before it starts. It says that men and women are equal, but then uses the word “feminism,” that is, a philosophy based on femininity, thus positing women as superior. Feminism claims to promote freedom for women and denounce the roles “proscribed” by white males, but in fact is even more vicious and exacting in saying exactly what it thinks the modern woman should look like. If for any strange reason some woman disagrees with feminism, then she’s a slave of the masculine system and is thrown under the bus by any “enlightened” woman. Feminism tries to assert that women are superior to men because they can make babies, but since when have we esteemed people for being born with abilities through no fault of their own? I am not a good person for being born with any physical talent as a man; there is no reason it should be any different for a woman. Feminism claims to esteem feminine “virtues,” and yet will oscillate either from reaffirming the same BS stereotypes of gentleness, kindness, meekness and blah blah blah when those qualities are desired, and then flips over to encouraging a total destruction of feminine qualities and instead demands that women take on masculine traits and become more manly than Chuck Norris, as if by being manly women can prove that femininity is better than masculinity. Feminists claim to battle the male chauvinist, but feminism is just a contraction for “female chauvinism,” and is essentially the same evil wearing a different set of genitals. If you truly want equality you will call yourself an egalitarian, not a feminist. If you’re a real woman, you’ll love who you are and what you’re able to do without having to steal what men have from them, betraying a subconscious admission that men have their own unique talents and value. I have no patience for feminism; real men have no patience for feminism; and real women have no patience for it either. Feminists claim to demand tolerance, but no one is less tolerant to a man who is honestly masculine than a feminist. Some day, society will look on feminism as equally outmoded as male chauvinism. But this requires effort from both sides of the fence.

Just to let you know. I am a feminist, I don’t think women are better than men. I love my man more than anything in the world and to me he is the worlds best person. Feminism isn’t anti-men. It’s just pro-women. Give us a break

alen said:

My point is that your argument is invalid.

The reason that you claim that men caused feminism, is based on feminism claiming that men oppressed them. I believe that the root of your arguement (to lay it out more) is something like this:

Feminism was built on the premise that men oppress women
Feminism claims that men oppressed women
Feminism exists
Therefore men oppressed women
Therefore men are responsible for creating feminism

The problem is, that with this type of arguement, the point being made is completely invalid. There is in fact no logical point being made, since the arguement and the premise rely on each other.

See the following for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic

In fact I would wager to guess that the only reason, outside of feminism itself (and information promoted to the media by feminist organizations, or feminist thinking individuals), that you have to believe in female oppression; is that you believe that it’s true. And that’s fine. This is the basis of many opinions; but be honest about it being an opinion if that’s the case.

From where I stand, and the research I’ve done; feminism has had a large tendency historically to misrepresent information for political gain, and to contractict itself. Most, if not all, information I’ve read has had heavy biases based on assumptions, that simply tend to be accepted as fact.

I was raised with feminism and wholeheartedly believed in its information, until I grew up and started seeng just how wrong it was about me, as a man; my male friends; and especially the women around me. It has done a profound diservice to relationships overall in my oppinion. Couples ending up in power struggles, where women are afraid of getting close and giving in on almost anything out of fear that they are being taken advantage of. Now I question feminism. Every aspect of it.

It may interest you to know too; that there have been efforts within feminism to minimize logical analysis by claiming that logical analysis itself is male oriented and women work in a “connected thinking” mode, where rational logic is not important, but the collective meaning of expressed experiences is what matters. Now that’s scary. Very cult - brainwashing-ish.

I’m afraid your first premise is wrong. The first premise of feminism is that women are oppressed - not that men oppress women.

So you could put it like this:

1. Women are oppressed. (empirical evidence is abundant to support this).
2. Oppression occurs through an imbalance of power
3. The power is held by the party who are not oppressed who oppress the other party.
4. Power has historically been controlled by a minority of men and favoured men’s rights consequently diminishing the relevence women’s rights.
5. Whether individual men or women are aware or unaware of the discrepancy between their rights in the law, etc. this does not change the truth of the situation.
6. When oppression becomes intolerable for the oppressed, an anti-oppression movement may occur.
7. An anti-oppression movement occurred to relieve women from oppression. This movement was called feminism.
8. There is a causal relationship between oppression and the consequent anti-oppression movement.
9. Feminism then was caused by oppression.
10. Because the oppression of women was largely perpetuated by men and a small number of women, and also benefited the same demographic - (though its questionable that men *really* benefit from this oppression) although a bit sloppy for purposes of shorthand in this throwaway internet forum for communication, you could say ‘men’ have oppressed women.

Therefore: the oppression of women which has largely been perpetuated by men for the benefit of men is indeed the ’cause of feminism’

You see… no patronising links to wikipedia needed.

Stephen said:
Would you tell me how to get in touch with you? I believe we have a lot to discuss.

Email.