Quote# 139569

The glaring difference between the definition of "male" and "female" on Medicine Net



(totalrando9)
It's funny... until you realize that young women are being pressured to 'define their gender' and 'decide what pronouns to use.' As the qualifications for 'being a woman' get more obscure and complicated, women will be pressured to dis-identify with the label 'woman.'

What's even worse is that this is supposed to be a medical definition of 'female' - they aren't even limiting their revisionism to 'women' anymore.

(XXisBornFemale)
Men are human.

We are non men.

We are whatever men say that we are. Men define us. We will never be permitted to define ourselves.

(raddy-set-go)
Scrolling further down that very same page:

" Women should be aware that they metabolize a number of drugs differently than men. In some cases and for some medications, the rate of metabolism may be slower, and in other cases, faster. It is, therefore, essential that women are well informed about the kinds and correct dosages of any drugs they are taking. "

But I suppose one can just "identify" out of those differences nowadays

(exhaustedstudent)
A great example of the way that society defines male as the default and woman as some sort of “variation”, which in turn opens the door for every other thing not defined as clearly male to come under the female umbrella.

(TerribleConfusion)
Wow, the thought police truly DGAF about trans men. So much of this movement is purely about sheltering and validating the precious, precious egos of narcissistic transwomen.

I'm thinking also of Cancer Research UK who changed all the wording on their website associated with cervical cancer and other women's illnesses, and left the wording on the men's cancers intact and straightforward.

Anyone got other instances like that? From this thread it seems like the Wikipedia page history for "woman" would be another good example of this. A few years ago the problem with that page was that it was full of misogynistic slurs listed as "synonyms" for "woman" while the page defining "man" was straightforward and scientific. It really does sometimes seem like the trans activists have stepped in to take over where the openly misogynistic dudebros have left off.

some TERFs, r/GenderCritical 2 Comments [8/7/2018 12:40:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 139566

[NOTE: Posting this in two parts to make it at least somewhat readable.]

Men Are Not Broken [Part 2]

The evidence for male love for death and destruction is overwhelming. But it would be wrong to assume that this is the end of the argument, that we just have to accept men’s natural dangerousness and adjust to it.

This we do anyway: taking self defense classes, keeping separate bank accounts when married, telling girls not to go with strange men. This is something even the most right-wing women do, however illogical and ineffective their precautions often seem. This is nothing particularly feminist. To – literally or metaphorically – carry a weapon in a world of predators is the bare minimum, not radical. (Many right-wing women carry literal weapons, something radical women should take in consideration for themselves as well.)

But unlike right-wing women and collaborators who simply accept male behaviour or at best demand cosmetical, individual change, Radical Feminists dig deeper. Beside the overwhelming evidence for male dangerousness we also find overwhelming evidence that men actually control their dangerousness when it suits them.

The picture of the man who just can’t help his nature is peddled by patriarchal apologists: The poor man was nagged and mocked by his shrew of a wife and couldn’t take it anymore. The poor man only follows his evolutionary instinct and raped her to assert his dominance. The poor man is the victim of political oppression, he just had to attack women to cope with his feeling of powerlessness. But women’s experiences make it very clear that men are highly selective towards whom they are ?losing control?.

Abusive men don’t attack their nagging and mocking male bosses with their fists. They don’t ambush their male boss on the toilet and rape him to get back at him. When they are oppressed and exploited, they don’t kick the boss from one corner of his office to the other. When their favourite team loses, they are not seeking out the quarterback to use him as a punching bag for their frustration. In a crowded train, they are not driven by some evolutionary instinct to go for the throat of their fellow male who enters their personal space or bares his teeth to them.

Men also are perfectly able to dose their violence. Male violence against women and children follows an escalating cyclic pattern. The escalation is a conscious strategy: How much will she be able to take? How far can I go? How many of my depraved fantasies can I make come true? (We observe the same deliberate escalation in sadomasochism. It is embraced there as ‘slave training’.)

Men are planning their crimes and they are able to cover them. Losing control is adverse to both. Someone who loses control does not build an air-tight terror regime in his own home, by and by cutting off his wife’s and children’s means of refuge and lowering the bar of ?reasons? for his violent outbursts. Someone who loses control does not take upon him the logistics of building torture chambers or digging up graves. Someone who loses control does not buy a new hammer before he goes out again and again to prey on women.

Men can control themselves just fine. They make the active choice to act on the impulses their faulty nature gives them.

So, where does that leave us?

Right-wing women openly collaborate to secure their individual position. If they are just compliant enough, they think they will be allowed to sit at the men’s table. If they are just submissive enough, they will be taken care of and be rewarded.

Many liberal feminists de facto do the same in a more hidden manner, while they are touting an empty ideology of equality. For them, maleness by and itself has worth. Therefore, to them, males can be potential allies, partners, lovers, teachers, people worthy of shaping society. They can even be women. If only they were a bit more friendly, a bit more peaceful, a bit more loving, a bit more loyal, a bit more equality-oriented.
This is nothing new. Contrary to anti-feminist propaganda, ever since feminism came into being – even more so, ever since women started to take action against their miserable situation, pre-dating organised feminism – an overwhelming majority of women preferred the equality approach, the liberal approach. Suffragettes argued that mothers were bringing voters into the world and thusly should be able to vote (6). ‘Bread and Roses’, one of the old songs coming out of the leftist women’s movement, includes the lines ?As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men; for they are women’s children, and we mother them again? (7). Second-wave ?women’s libbers? won out over their radical counterparts, enabling the backlash, sex positivism and the modern mantra of ?I choose my choice!”. Modern third/fourth-wavers with their love of sexual submission, trannies and He-For-She bring this sucking up to men to a logical conclusion.

Many women do this deliberately. They are sell-outs or anti-feminists making use of a liberal feminist mien to gain something from it. TV show creators like Shonda Rhimes or Lena Dunham make good money by catering to a certain urban, slightly feminist, female audience.

Other women are too much invested in the personal privilege they obtain for being compliant to patriarchy: They get to call themselves feminist, without having to change their personal lifestyle or to risk income, while they can keep any convenient patriarchal mind blankie, from religion to sadomasochism. A sizeable portion of these women explicitly doesn’t want to be any more radical. They want to have the privilege AND the sisterhood, without seeing the fundamental contradiction between the two.

But some of them are just not aware of what they are doing. This is an impression I got in the last years. There are plenty of campaigns on Twitter and in the blogosphere (like e. g. #Yesallwomen or Project Unbreakable) documenting the horrors women experience under patriarchy. The thousands of testimonies show two things: Women are reliable, sharp and precise observers of their own lives – and many women are somehow unable to draw radical and long-term conclusions from their experiences.

Instead, they are desperately begging men to be nicer to them because they want to be able to love them. Many liberal feminist suggestions aim in this direction, e. g. trying to make men not use pejorative language. As if a man who does not call them a bitch, a cunt, a whore or a dyke to their faces was somehow rendered incapable of thinking these things in his mind. (Personally, I prefer to be called names, because I instantly know whom never to turn my back to.) On the other hand, liberal women try to achieve their goals by appealing to men’s interests, e. g. when they declare that a ?liberated? feminist is better in bed that those other prudes. Their approach is to be inclusive, as if the oppressed class could make the oppressors relinquish their power by being nice.

These women are actually the ones I expect to do better. Women as a group are not stupid or naive or even close-minded. There is a reason why women are to be found at the forefront of every social cause imaginable. Women as a class – unlike the patriarchal lie of the ‘conservative woman’ proclaims – tend to be more open to new things and ideas than men. They are deeper thinkers than men, capable of understanding the ma-trix rather than the mechanics.

Women have to WANT to think, though. Hoping and wishing and begging is not enough.
The only realistic way for us to shape freedom for girls and women is seperatism. We as women need to put other women – any other woman – above everyone else. Men do that. Men can hate each others’ guts, but they will always close ranks towards women. It is time women do the same. This is the only way for women to make a better future: Stop catering to men in any way. Don’t make them lunch. Don’t listen to their problems. Don’t pick up their dirty coffee cups at work. Don’t have male friends. Give up male family. Don’t have children. Don’t talk to men at all if you are not forced to. Don’t live with them. Don’t sleep with them. Don’t step aside on the street. Don’t take gifts from them. Don’t interact with them online. Don’t imagine the ?perfect? man. Het women do that and when they don’t find any man living up to their ideals, they come to the conclusion that all men are scum while still clinging to their mental image of the perfect man. But the truth is, even the ideal man still is scum.

Start with a small change, e. g. not talking to the creepy neighbour anymore, and work your way. You will realise, the less interaction you have with men, the easier you’ll breathe. This also doesn’t make you more vulnerable. Think about the statistics. We are most likely to be attacked and/or raped by men we know: Family members, boyfriends and husbands, friends, acquaintances. Random attacks by strangers do happen, but they are nowhere as likely as becoming the victim of a man we already know. Living with a man, spending time with men, this is what endangers women most. We have been told the opposite, so this seems counter-intuitive. But it is a fact that the biggest threat to a woman, statistically speaking, is the man whom she thinks of as her protector.

Put women above everything else. Live alone or build separatist communities. Show solidarity. Look for hobbies done in female-only groups. Find the beauty in every woman. Stay away from men and their empty promises.

This is what I do. Cutting one man after the other out of my life. Prioritising Lesbians and women and girls. And I will keep writing about how liberal feminism hurts all of us, because for liberal feminists I still have hope. Not much hope, admittedly, but still hope.

IceMountainFire, IceMountainFire 0 Comments [8/7/2018 12:40:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 139565

[NOTE: Posting this in two parts to make it at least somewhat readable.]

Men Are Not Broken [Part 1]

Looking back on my posts so far, I realise I have written a lot about how liberal feminists are failing other women, and relatively little about the root cause of the miserable state the planet is in: Men.

There is a reason for that. Men are utterly unimportant to me. There is nothing to be expected from them.Writing about what anti-feminist women and men should do is pointless. Anti-feminist women make choices I can only view with disgust and contempt; a sentiment that without a doubt is mutual. And men? Men can’t change.

Their fundamental set-up is faulty. When a man does horrible things to girls and women, he is doing what his very nature commands him to do. Men can’t be reformed, they can’t be reasoned with, and they can’t be fixed. They are not broken.Their lack of intelligence, depth and human emotion is built-in. Even ?matriarchal? societies suffer from men’s inbuilt shortcomings.

Men are biologically brittle. Their Y chromosome is a joke, and their rates of life expectancy, disease, injury, addiction, education failure etc are evidence for their fundamentally faulty design. They can manage to somehow keep the upper hand as long as they manipulate the stakes against women. But even the most timid changes towards some sort of fairness (never mind liberation) make women outrun men in no time. Boys and men are not failing at school and university because these places all of a sudden have become matriarchal habitates, as certain anti-feminists suggest. They fail because as a group they are less intelligent than women. Boys and men excel only when they get to manipulate the testing method: They create IQ tests to favour white Western males, they give each other Nobel prizes and trump this as ?proof? for their intelligence. IQ tests and Nobel prizes are tightly monitored instruments. But schools and unis exist all over the world, with millions of teachers and billions of students. Schools and unis are not controlled by a relatively small gate-keeping elite like the Nobel prize committees or the opinion leaders in the field of psychology who have the power to declare one test valid and to disregard another. Schools and unis can’t be controlled as tightly, and so boys and men are failing in them. I wonder how badly they’d fare if the schools were indeed female-centered.

Even the most intelligent of men are still incredibly dense. Talk to science phDs or techies. I had to do with this demographic more than I ever wanted, and their sheer ignorance often took my breath away. Context, history, depth, complexity, ambiguity and beauty are completely lost to them. It is like talking to vaguely human-like machines. I suspect that this is the reason why so many men are drawn to machines, instruction manuals and lifeless things.

At this point men usually come up with the last two arguments for their existence: Physical strength and sperm. They argue that they are needed for the hard work (or, according to delusional anti-feminists, ?exploited? to do the hard work) and that without them ?mankind? will die out.

But reality shows that all this male strength and sperm is completely wasteful and unnecessary. If tomorrow all men fell down and were dead, the biggest problem would be the stink. Sperm banks would enable the surviving women to bring just enough men into the world to stock up the banks again. There would be far less people on earth, but they would live in peace.

As for strength, nobody needs to be able to lift hundreds of kilograms. It is just not necessary. Make smaller loads and go the way twice. Or build a tackle. There is no industry – including the notorious mining industry which regularly is brought up in such discussions – impossible to function with exclusively female workers. In the very moment men step back or vanish from the picture, women do fine for themselves. Mining, metal work, construction work, fishing, hunting, making timber, finance, business, women simply don’t need men. The truth is, that men are actively keeping women from learning ?male? skills and from working in ?male? professions. By this they secure their financial dominance and keep women dependant on them.

And if that doesn’t help, they use violence.
Men are violent and predatory by nature. Even little boys and very old men are violent. Ask the family of Jamie Bulger (1). Other boys may not kill random toddlers, but they terrorise girls or torture animals. A male toddler squashing ants or dragging around the family dog by the tail isn’t even perceived as violent by most people. A boy hitting, insulting, bullying and harrassing his sister is not perceived as violent – siblings quarrel, that’s just how things are, and boys will be boys.

As for old men, not even physical weakness stops them from attacking girls and women. There is a reason why the phrase ?dirty old man? exists. With the onset of the general mental decay so typical for aging men, their self-control slips and they start to make mistakes. Every ?dirty old man? used to be a dirty young man who just was quick-witted enough to cover up his crimes, and every dirty young man is a grown up violent boychild.

Last year, there were two men prowling my neighbourhood and bashing in women’s heads from behind. One of them was 21 years old and used a crowbar in order to steal money and phones. The other one was 89 (!) years old and used a wooden meat hammer. His reasoning? He married a woman from Thailand 30 years his junior. When he abused her, she divorced him and moved back to Thailand. This made him so angry that he sneaked up on random women and hit them in the head with the meat hammer he specifically bought for this task.

No amount of oppression, weakness or illness keeps men from being violent and predatory.

Logically, men adore death. They bring death. They like death. They like dead things.
Men see women as things, as useable goods, as animated corpses. Some don’t even bother with ‘animated’. Men admit openly in the media that they prefer pornography over sex, as if the women raped on the screen weren’t real. Men work hard to develop realistic sex robots or wife robots (2). Men literally will rape dead women.

.
.
.

Men are usually very much aware that they are scum. Their delusions of grandeur and the demands towards women to cater to them are a reaction to this deep inner awareness of their inferiority. Occasionally men even will admit that they are scum.
Commenters on this article did it: http://valleywag.gawker.com/peter-thiel-admits-the-paypal-mafia-built-bombs-in-hi-1632734435
Look how many commenters casually point out that it is normal for teenage boys to build bombs just for the fun of it.

IceMountainFire, IceMountainFire 1 Comments [8/7/2018 12:40:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 139564

(That90sCaliChick)
What if we women just stopped all emotional or activist labor for TRAs?

I’ve been thinking about this for quite some time. I almost wonder what would happen if every last woman on earth stopped performing emotional or activist labor for TRAs given how shitty they treat us.

I’ve stopped doing any activist labor for them and I’ve never felt better! Same goes for some former libfems I’ve talked to. The minute they put women first is when they realized where they need to be.

Think about it. TRAs get tons of corporate funding and media attention. Why do they need the labor of us everyday women? They can rely on their corporate buddies.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the only reason they guilt and terrorize us into performing labor for them is so they can have us preoccupied and we can’t do things for ourselves. That needs to stop.

I think it would be what is deserved.

I would like to see it now on this website: no more using "cis", as we are humans, not isomers. No more using the word woman for anyone but adult human females. No more emotional labor for men who post here.

If only the libfems would see it that way. They exhaust themselves performing all this labor for them. I can see it in their eyes.

I feel many of our sisters waking up, however. This site has grown so large- there were 4K subscribers when I arrived, and there are 4x that after 18 months.

It is difficult to have patience for women who spend so much of themselves on men. Try to raise consciousnesses wherever you can. I found this site through an article about boys join a girls' sports team.

We will never change all of their minds, but women are worth it, even the ones who oppose us.

Yep. I’m even finding common ground with conservative women on this issue. I know conservative women are handmaidens too, but even if they’re willing to team with us for a short time, it’ll be worth it.

(Omina_Sentenziosa)
The best (or worst) thing about it is that it' s not going to be enough anyway. At the smallest infraction, they will be labeled TERFs as well, and if that doesn' t happen the goalposts will move and TRAs will ask even more insane and impossible shit than they are doing now.

Frankly, I think that TRAs are acting this way because 1) they need women working for them and supporting them since they are lazy and entitled and would never think of, you know... doing something themselves, 2) because they are testing us to see how much we' re willing to take and how far they can go before we snap and tell them to go fuck themselves and 3) because they want to have a "justifiable" reason to hate on us: think about it, what' s better than telling a woman to choke on your dick? Telling a woman to choke on your dick and be called awesome for that.

(XXisBornFemale)
We shouldn't be doing anything at all for men.

Men always do well. And they have plenty of extra energy to rape/mutilate/murder/abuse girls and women. They look out for each other.

Perhaps if they had to make their own sandwiches, do their own laundry, raise their own children, etc., they wouldn't have time or energy to control every uterus, imprison us for miscarriage, etc.

Amen!! This is part of why I’m not having children. I know I would be doing the majority of the child rearing. Fuck that.

Not having children was the single best decision that I ever made.

Some women don't have any choice about their own pregnancies, and I understand that, too.

I am glad that I didn't create more men, for obvious reasons. And I don't know how I would deal with it if I knew that I would be leaving daughters behind when I die. Especially when so many women are so centered on men.

(FabulousNerfherder)
Agreed. I'm going to start a meetup for "womyn" and then plan that woman's festival.

(That90sCaliChick)
Just let me know when and where! I’m sick of every last womyn’s event being coopted by trans activists and porn sick men! Fuck that!

some TERFs, r/GenderCritical 2 Comments [8/7/2018 12:40:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 139563

So, STE. I guess the most interesting thing would be knowing who you are in terms of your ideology.
Are you some libtard trying to stir up some of our vague “coalitions” or are you a real libertine who supports Holcoausts’ blog? Or are you something third?

If you are just some leftie I’ll tell you to go fuck yourself. But I’ll assume you’re somebody who actually supports Holocaust21.

I’ve never tried to hide the fact that I hate modern Western women. I believe them to be incapable of being good mothers and wives. This is no secret, most of my writings talk about that. To understand my post, you’d have to know the fundamental change that happened in the world around 2000-2004, which had to do with feminism entering my home country and making providers now unnecessary and to be replaced by seducers. Since I am not a seducer doing horrible shit like that would have indeed made me more attractive to girls that age, when I was 12 myself. Why didn’t I? Because I didn’t know how things were ! My parents, teachers etc were all raised in a society that was much less feminist. The shit a person like that Calvin2018 nutcase blames me for is just that – not getting around in a completely new environment on time. Also, Calvin’s posts, both on Reddit and their blog, are horrendous accusations veiled behind fake intellectualism, as they couldn’t even pretend it’s not about sex for a single day despite claiming they don’t believe it is (I mean it’s just in their title and everything they write, why I am so picky when saying that?) and plainly told me that me not being incel for a year means that I’ve been having sex for an year. That is Calvin, but you’re not mentioning them so I won’t go further into that.

Does that post say I’d do the same thing now? No, it doesn’t !

You call me a misogynist? Do you know what that would entail? It would entail hatred of ALL women. But how many of my posts attacked women in non-feminist societies? There are some sentences I made on female nature in general, but they’re more “buyer beware” than hateful content.

Is killing women wrong? Depends on how you view these women. I view modern Western women as irredeemably evil, and believe killing them makes a male more, not less attractive. Same with rape or other acts of violence against them. I’ve seen the rape thing with my own eyes. You call MRA’s misogynists? What is this, 2012? Honey, MRAs have been losing relevance for some years. And, no, they’re not all misogynists, this is something retarded that a feminist would write in 2012.

And finally, do people you mentioned have disagreements? Of course they do. I disagree with some of Nathan’s ideas and consider them absurd and barbaric (impregnating you daughter? C’mon). I disagree with Holocaust that the best societies were Netherlands or Sweden in the 70s. I mean, I think these were pleasant to live in but were something like that moment before Willie Coyote realizes that there is a nothing underneath him. They didn’t function on sustainable grounds and turned to shit they are now because the foundations were wrong even then.

But why should we agree on everything?

Now, if you wanna make a serious reply to this go ahead. But I doubt you will.


caamib, Holocaust21 1 Comments [8/7/2018 12:40:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: badoo

Quote# 139560

It's over for you if:

You have ever searched "how to get a girlfriend" on Google

- You have ever searched "tricks to attract girls" on Google

- You have ever read a PUA book, ebook, or web page

- You have ever paid for a PUA workshop

- You know who any of these guys is: RooshV, Mystery, Neil Strauss

- You have tried to get more muscle so as to attract women

If you have ever done this you are at 90% probability of remaining incel all your life. The explanation is simple: that shows you can't attract women naturally. You're off to a bad start because sexual attraction is pretty much based on genes.

Fontaine, incels.me 9 Comments [8/6/2018 6:10:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139558

Women don't care about what men think. They care about what women think . . .
. . . even if it's completely fucking illogical, because women don't rationalize. They feel. And they feel that their tethered bond to the sisterhood hivemind is a sacred one that they are primordially attached to. This is even beyond CHAD himself. If the sisterhood hivemind decided tommorow CHAD has a a tiny dick, let's all go lezzie, they'd do it.

SlayerSlayer, incels.me 4 Comments [8/6/2018 6:10:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139555

Evolution is on topic for reaction, for the nature of women makes sense and is explicable in terms of Darwinian evolution, in terms of evolutionary psychology. You can also explain it as the curse of Eve, but if you explain it as the curse of Eve, it is rather arbitrary. Why did God curse women that way, and not some other way? (Answer, because we are risen killer apes, not fallen angels.) And because women are cursed in this fashion we cannot trust them to make sexual and reproductive choices. Nor can we trust them to vote, for they are going to vote for invasion, conquest, and the extermination of their menfolk.

...

Vox Day’s advice on handling women is not very good. It may well have been adversely affected by his reluctance to believe in evolution. Similarly, his faith in the sexless character of females under eighteen.

While I am delighted that #metoo is devouring those who funded it and sponsored it I know perfectly well that every notable #metoo allegation is a malicious lie, for the targets are always the men whom women very much want, wealthy and powerful men, and the accusers are mostly washed up narcissistic whores that men no longer want – the accusations are directed against those men who are most likely to be sexually contacted by women in a sexually aggressive manner, and the accusations come from those women who are most apt to sexually contact men in a sexually aggressive manner.

While we should never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake, and should enthusiastically cheer our enemies as they devour each other, Vox Day is a blue pilled sucker for failing to identify vicious lying whores as vicious lying whores. Weinstein and company deserve what they are going to get – but they deserve it for sponsoring the movement that is now devouring them. Similarly, when Stalin sent those who set up death camps to their own death camps for “objective fascism”, it was a good thing that they were sent to their own death camps, but one should not be persuaded that they were actually were objectively fascists. And it will be a good thing if Weinstein and company are convicted of rape, but they are no more rapists than Trots were fascists, and if Vox Day thinks they are guilty, he is ignorant of the nature of women, to which ignorance his rejection of evolution has likely contributed.

Jim, Jim's Blog 6 Comments [8/6/2018 6:10:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 139544

But why is that? Because after sexual revolution and so called "liberation" of women men have no incentives to be husbands and start family anymore. In general, men will do what it takes to get sex, and sex drive is a huge factor behind met getting married. It is well-known that the traditional (pre 1960s) mating system required men to be reliable husbands and providers in order to marry, and marriage was by large considered the only legitimate sexual release (as it should be). In other words, women and society required men to become husbands and providers in order to get sex and satiate their sex drives.

This was also a moral solution in which sex was restricted to the confines of marriage, as it should be (sure, there were patologies, but I'm talking about the system in general). Also, women married in their early 20s, giving incentives to men to work hard and become candidates for husbands and providers. Fast forward to today. "Liberated" women are not interested in marriage untill their late 20s/early 30s, spending that time at various LTRs/casual sex with whomever they like. Therefore, women no longer require men to marry them and be reliable husbands and providers in order to get sex, so men don't do it, because they don't have to - simple as that.

It has also another layer. Sexual revolution removed all shackes on female sexuality. Women can now financialy support themselves and don't need to lock down a provider husband like they did before the 1960s. All social stigma was removed from fornication, therefore women are free to select their partners solely (or at least mainly) on the basis of sexual attraction. It is well known and proved by research that due to their hypergamy majority of women are sexually attracted only to top 20-30% men (alpha males) - these men get tons of casual sex and don't need to become husbands/providers in order to achieve that.

Other 70% men (mostly betas) receive little to no female attention in their early 20s (women will settle on them only later, when they can't lock down one of the top 20-30% for marriage), therefore they also have no incentives to do work to become reliable providers and husbands. Before the 1960s an average beta male had a good shot at marrying a feminine woman early, as he was in demand as a provider. Now, with "liberated" women supporting themselves and entering the workforce, a beta provider is no longer needed (women often settle for one in their late 20s/early 30s, since there are not enough alpha males to go around, but they are not happy about it, which results in 40% divorce rate).

Add to this terribly unfair divorce laws in the US which are heavily skewed in favor of women, including no fault divorce (70% of divorces are initiated by women - women can blow up marriage for any reason any time and be sure of getting cash and prizes), child support (imputed income, in some states men can go to jail if they lose a job and can't afford child support) and you have further disincentives for men to work to be husbands, again caused by feminism. Finally, husband's authority as head of family has largely been dismantled by the aforementioned unfair divorce laws, feminist propaganda, state education, popular culture, #MeeToo, etc.

Tl;dr - men will do what women and society require them to do in order to be selected as mates. After sexual revolution, advent of feminism and decline of Christianity and its moral values in Western societies, women rejected early marriage en masse, no longer requiring men to be husbands and providers in order to get sex, so men don't do that. Also, the authority of husband and father has been completely destroyed by feminism. Feminism started all of this and remains the main driving force behind this process. All of this is well documented and covered in Christian/Catholic manosphere by such bloggers as Dalrock and Donalgraeme.

Arvinger, Suscipe Domine 5 Comments [8/5/2018 12:04:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 139543

This is a very interesting observation. A divorce or abortion doesn't have to take place for people to suffer the effects of feminism. Every bond is weakened, every family relationship takes on a new and different nature. Even before it reveals itself in exterior manifestations, the invisible ontological reality of family ties has been transformed, from something permanent into something temporary, from something fundamental to our nature into something based on pragmatic calculations.

A specific example of this is the permanence of the marriage bond. That bond does not lose its permanence on the day on which one of the partners files for divorce. That bond always lacked the sacramental quality of permanence from the very beginning to the extent that divorce was ever an option. On the day when the couple stand on the steps of the altar and say "I do," they form a permanent sacramental bond if they enter into marriage with the understanding that divorce is never an option no matter what difficult circumstances they might encounter, and they form a different kind of bond if they

When you live in a culture of feminism and divorce the way we do, you can't help breathing the air around you. Everyone is affected by the society in which they live. Everyone is affected by the laws under which they operate.

The famous "Radio Replies" had a pamphlet on "Mixed Marriage" that they published in the thirties warning Catholic boys, "No matter how much that protestant girl says that she believes in the permanence of marriage and that she would never get divorced, her words mean little in comparison the fundamental reality which is that she can divorce you at any time and get remarried. You, meanwhile, will be stuck for life."

What was true back then for protestants is just as true today for Catholics. Anyone you marry can divorce you at any time, and they can get remarried without any obstacles from the state or from the Church.

Maximilian, Suscipe Domine 4 Comments [8/5/2018 12:03:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 139540

Whenever I go on reddit and lurk around, I always see post wall females on Reddit virtue signaling about their beta providers or their past boyfriends. One common theme is that they always bring up "emotional intelligence".

This is an oxymoron. Intelligence involves logic and critical thinking to solve problems and see rationally. Emotions get in the way of logical thinking. Emotions are just a reaction to things that happen around you, no person is more "emotionally" intelligent than others.

These women clearly don't care about so called emotional intelligence. They care about strong jawlines, blue eyes, being 6 ft+, and having a stable job. In regards to their providers, they care about their resources, not them. Females as a whole usually deny having any physical requirements when dating yet in reality, your genetics are what determines your success 95% of the time.

I have noticed that younger females on Instagram tend to be more honest about what they are attracted to, and IT hates that. They follow pages dedicated to jawlines, handsome guys as a whole, and post memes about how attractive tall guys are. Then when you go on reddit, females magically are attracted to guys who go hiking on the weekend and share their politics opinions.

Cool fact: Women hate when you agree with them on everything. It is a sign of weakness.

Ap0calypse, incels.me 3 Comments [8/5/2018 12:03:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 139539

Apart from beeing a reject, I actually hate women for some reason. The only female who ever wanted me was bitching around. It was a nice time when we get to know better but after that we're argued all the time we saw each other, just as expected. Women keep bitching and grumbling about every small errors. Yet I have to provide and protect her with such a shitty attitude? Fuck that, I prefer hanging with my friends, having a wonderful time.

Women are fucking, little parasites that should be exterminated and so the humanity imho. I may be a low IQ, mentally disorded idiot but isn't it even more idiotic wasting my time on women? In the end I just get even more frustrated. I'll rather focus on how to make money rather than wasting my time with those parasites.

SupremeG, incels.me 6 Comments [8/5/2018 12:03:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 139538

This is a weird theory, but hear me out on this one. In our current sexual market place, hypergamy is at an all time high. We have 6 women dating and marrying 10 guys. We have 10 women basically hopping from guy to guy. Water is wet, I know. BUT, my theory is that 10/10 stacies will price themselves out of the market. Hypergamy will raise the price of pussy so high that no guy will be willing to go for a 10/10.

Largely because it isn't realistic to keep them without restricting their sexuality. Thus, if her sexuality is unrestricted, she will chronically go from guy to guy until she ages out. When she attempts to settle down with her 10/10 counterparts, they would've largely moved on to marrying an average women with less miles. I know, few women have "less" miles. However, the main point is that this process will take place for generations until hot 10/10 babes get mated out of existence. Your thoughts guys?

Robo Sapien, incels.me 1 Comments [8/5/2018 12:03:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 139528

Hypergamy

Hypergamy is the inclination for women to "trade up" is terms of looks, money, or status.

Women are always calculating whether the gains from a new relationship will off-set the losses of leaving an old one. Femoids are consistent in analyzing the value of their partners relative to the available pool of men. While hypergamy has always existed, women judge social expectations as a cost when leaving a partner. Modern society makes promiscuity less of a negative, so women are more likely to jump shit when ready.

80/20 Rule

A analysis of online dating reveals than the vast majority of women who rate men only consider about 20% of them to be actually attractive in looks. In the most popular dating app of tinder, people have found out that “the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men" [1].

Personality Doesn't Override Hypergamy

Obviously, a common normie counterargument would be that women aren’t as visual in real life as in the app, and that you can display a bit of personality when approaching a woman. Other studies, however, stress on the notion called the “halo effect,” in which your perceived personality could be in correlation to how you look. [2] For example men are commonly told to be funny to attract women, but in reality being attractive makes you appear funnier in everything you say [3] and judged less harshly/not seen as creepy in weird situations [4].

Even in real life, you have to surpass a certain looks level for a woman to even desire you intimately. There has to be physical attraction at first for a relationship to be initiated. While women say that personality matters more than looks, their decision indicates that they value looks first [5].

As a result, we can conclude that since females do not regard the vast majority of men to be physically attractive, them being sexually free would result in sexual inequality, since only a few men would be actually desired by women. The other 80% have to make up heavily by status or money.

GINI coefficients

A study which analyzed GINI coefficients in human relationships found that, “single men have a higher Gini coefficient (.536) than single women (.470). Thus, female sexual partners are more unequally distributed among single men than male sexual partners are among single women” [6].

Keep in mind that women commonly underestimate the number of their partners to avoid appearing as sluts (only a view would actually say the truth.) This gives the illusion that sexual inequality might exist among them. The only reason why the GINI coefficient isn’t close to .6 (80/20) among men is because sub8 males are more likely to exaggerate their number of partners to avoid being virgin shamed.

More and More Males Are Becoming Celibate

Here is a graph that shows that male celibacy is rising, while female celibacy is decreasing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/992105680000749570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fincels.me%2Fthreads%2Fmore-blackpill-data-share-of-population-sexless-in-the-last-year-by-gender.41257%2F

Since looks are the main factor in leading to sexual attraction, we could make the assumption that females are simply not appreciating the facial appearances of most men and not giving their sexual favors to them frequently.

How women chase Chads

The cock carousel is a phenomenon that is associated with hypergamy. In theory, women would chase as many Chads as possible during their prime years before settling with a betabux.

One particular UCLA study states that, “a great deal of the evidence indicates two overlapping suites of psychological adaptations in women: those for securing long-term, cooperative social partnerships for rearing children and those for pursuing a dual-mating strategy in which women secure a social partner and engage in selective sexual affairs to gain access to good genes for offspring” [7].

Translation: women (programmed to search for the best genes) have tendencies to fuck the Chads first, and once they become completely used up and hit the wall, search for a betabux to attain financial security and actually raise children with.

It’s OVER if you’re not Chad

Normalfaggots love to state that since ugly/average men can get women, the female species isn’t always displaying hypergamous behavior. This is so wrong on many levels, since women at heart always want Chad and will leave anyone for him once they get the chance.

“Women whose mate value increases substantially will become (1) more emotionally dissatisfied with their current partner, (2) more likely to evade a partner's mate guarding efforts, (3) more likely to cultivate backup mates, (4) more likely to initiate new relationships with higher mate value men, and (5) less inclined to stay with their current partners” [8].

Another study showed that women orgasm more frequently when having sex with attractive guys than with non attractive guys [9]. This shows that women are very likely to keep pursuing Chads for maximum sexual pleasure.

Further proof
A study that analyzed changes in the distribution of sex partners from 2002 to 2011-2013 showed that compared to 2002, top 20% of men (in terms of LMS) now had a 25% increase in sexual partners, and the top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners. The study commented that “no significant changes were identified among women in the top 20% and top 5%, overall, and among subgroups” [10].

Sources

1 https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

2 https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/92158/TheHaloEffect.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

3 https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/19/are-funny-people-sexy-or-are-sexy-people-funny

4 https://splinternews.com/homely-men-judged-more-harshly-than-hot-men-instantly-1793848040

5 https://youtube.com/watch?v=iOHdZKDldIg

6 https://contexts.org/blog/who-has-how-many-sexual-partners/

7 http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf

8 https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/The-Mate-Switching-Hypothesis-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2017.pdf

9 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915001002

10 https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2017/02000/Changes_in_the_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx

Incel Wiki, incels.me 2 Comments [8/5/2018 8:53:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139527

Tanner

There is a tier between Melvin and Chad.

This tier is called Tanner. In the grand scheme, relatively speaking, Tanner functions as a Melvin if Chad is present, but Tanner does possess some unique traits.

Tanner is basically just a douche, kind of like some people think Chad is, but Chad isn't a douche, Chad is really funny and is just a genuine savage. Everyone loves Chad, even if it's just begrudgingly, unless they're insane and want to kill Chad out of envy. Okay back to Tanner. No one thinks Tanner is actually that funny. If they are laughing at his joke, it's because they overestimate his social clout and want to be adjacent to him to increase their own shit-tier standing. He isn't really popular, but he IS capable of making friends who aren't autistic and who do not interact with him initially only from things like dungeons and dragons.

Tanners can often be mistaken for Melvins, or a really, really third-rate Chad, but only by people who don't understand or at least recognize the many nuanced layers Chad operates on so effortlessly. (Sidenote: Chads don't necessarily have to understand their own behaviors completely in order to continue them or to be a Chad). Tanners also confuse people this way because they readily offer up their own resources, for example a Tanner will volunteer his parents' house for a high school party. In this scenario, Tanner hasn't actually brought anything to the table himself, especially not with his social skills (because they are poor - unlike Melvin's which don't exist at all). Tanner is attempting to buy social clout, likely thinking he can get laid with this method. He might, but he will not retain a truly valuable lady, an elusive Stacy, if he is even lucky enough to snag one for that fateful night. Many people besides Stacys and Chads will mistakenly believe having hard resources can make you a Chad. Chad is both a status, and a mindset, first and foremost. Hard resources are simply something that comes to Chads from their hard work ethic.

Tanners often do possess enough cleverness to recognize Chads. Tanners, because they are not completely oblivious to the repercussions of their mistakes like so many Melvins are, universally fear Chads. To be fair, it doesn't take a ton of cleverness to recognize Chad. Some Melvins can do it. The main motive for Tanners to identify Chads is to attempt to be adjacent to them, to swim in their wake so to speak. This nearly always ends poorly for them, because Chads can coexist with each other when in environments with plentiful Stacys, and with Chads in the picture, Tanner is basically invisible. Tanner will almost always end up with a Margaret in this scenario, but generally avoids Gertrudes as they think themselves too high ranking to stoop to Gertrude.

Through many years of efforts, poor quality as they are, Tanners can eventually develop a reasonable enough understanding of the power dynamics that surround them, if they didn't have that earlier in life. For this reason Tanners will attempt to occupy spaces that are vacant of Chads, to assume Chad's role and hope to fool those in that space. Stacys tend to instinctively know something is wrong, but while experiencing Chad-scarcity they find a way to rationalize temporarily stooping to a Tanner, especially if he or his parents have money.

Because Tanners do not possess the natural social skills, chiseled forms and sexual abilities that Chad does, it's only a matter of time before he slips up and Tanner's tactic of pretending to be a Chad blows up in his face. Tanner will likely go through a period of hard Melvining after the devastation of his one-sided bonding with a Stacy and then losing her.

Chad has total social dominance, and even if he's borderline retarded, he at least vaguely knows it. Margarets who cannot retain Chads and are aware of it may pretend to not be into Chads, and may seek out Tanners to try and pussy-whip into trophy boyfriends to present as a Chad, that may fool other, less experienced Margarets and Gertrudes. Stacys will always figure out Tanner isn't Chad in the end though, but then again Stacy doesn't like lowering herself to hang out much with Margaret and Gertrude in the first place.

Although inconsequential, Tanners may be identified by Chads as non-Melvins, but also as non-Chads. That's why it's inconsequential. Chads treat Tanners as Melvins because relatively speaking, with Chad around, they are. Tanners are generally competent enough to get degrees and decent jobs, though it isn't a guarantee for them. It isn't a guarantee for anyone. However this remains a requirement for any non-Chad to retain even the lowest level Margarets and Gertrudes. Again, going back to hard resources, they are most often a substitute for charm, tact, good looks, height, athleticism, sexual prowess, and humor, in this context. Only the inexperienced will fail to recognize this in "the dating market" free for all.

Tanners also confuse people because they can have, or mimic; popular fashion style, sense of humor, and entertainment media choices. They also may attempt a gym routine, but are often not dedicated enough to make substantial "gainz". Although at first glance a Tanner's style may seem on point, with careful scrutiny it becomes obvious Tanner is a try-hard. Chad wears whatever he feels like. Sometimes he puts literally zero thought into how he presents himself. Tanner never does this. Tanner is always self conscious. He also knows very little about the entertainment media he is careful to always present himself with. This is another dead giveaway of his real identity. Tanners also may have a witty remark to make in the ideal situation, if they speak up first, but it should be noted that it's usually memorized (mimicked from past experience with Chad) and practiced, and that their utter lack of natural improvisational skills will rear its ugly head fairly quickly in an evening of light hearted socialization, leading Tanner to lose the attention of countless Stacys.

Keep an eye out for the subtle indicators of a Tanner, and observe them in the delicate ecosystem that is human group interaction. It will be on the mid-term.

Incel Wiki, Incel Wiki 8 Comments [8/5/2018 8:53:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139526

Stacy

Stacy is the ultimate embodiment of every wicked, depraved aspect of feminine nature. She is vain, obsessed with jewelry, makeup, and clothes. She is an entitled whore whose rich daddy funds her Caribbean vacations to go "find herself." She entertains a flock of orbiters who shower her with attention and validation, only to open her legs for Chad or Tyrone instead. Stacy exploits her looks and inflated sexual value to coax favors out of her orbiters. Second only to knajjd, she is the most despicable person in existence.

Despite her degenerate character, Stacy will live a superior life to any incel solely on the basis of her looks, her inherited wealth, and her inborn talent for psychological manipulation. She will have the pick of her careers, as any STEM employer will happily take her on to fill a quota. Indeed, she won't even need to work at all if she so desires, as any blue-pilled cuck will happily marry her and pay for all her useless shit. Nonetheless, she will pretend to be the victim of the patriarchy, blaming men for her own deficiencies.

Fucking Stacies, man

Incel Wiki, Incel Wiki 1 Comments [8/5/2018 8:53:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139525

Chad

Chad is your high school bully. He is now the guy who works on Wall Street or who plays for a pro-sports team. Chad can get nearly any woman he wants based on his high sexual market value. He is not necessarily a male model. Since the inflation of hypergamy, we can reach the conclusion that Chads are the only male beneficiaries of the sexual revolution.

Women Flock to Him, Not the Other Way Around

Contrary to popular opinion, chad doesn't cockblock other men. He doesn't need to. Chad has women coming to *him*. He opens his tinder and finds dozens of matches and messages just in the last week. Chad can say nearly anything he wants to a woman on a dating app and within a few messages get her number and a place/time to be intimate. Sometimes the only difference between chad and an incel is a few millimeters of bone and fat on the face.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/308/145/4ab.png (use this pic)

PUA copers commonly state that you have to be confident to get women IRL. However this isn’t the case for Chad. If Chad doesn’t approach the woman who desires him, she will find a way to make her intentions known, or even approach him herself [1].

What makes a male a Chad?

A Chad from looks basically has an 8/10 PSL rating.

Common characteristics for a Chad include:

Above 6 foot in height, large frame, broad shoulders, 0-1 on the norwood scale, hunter eyes with little to no upper eyelid exposure, positively or neutrally tilted eyes, prominent high cheekbones, thick eyebrows, a large skull, compact midface, killer long chin, defined squarish jawline, long vertical ramus, gonial angle of approx. 120 degrees, forward growth of the mandible and the maxilla, a short straight nose, an ideal philtrum to chin ratio (with the philtrum being shorter), clean exotic skin, healthy bite with white teeth, and lastly, low body fat (below 15%) [2].

Common examples of Chads

Use pics and shit bro lol

Sources
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=-Z49ixqSFAE (section of the girl interviewed)

[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=EFnJMPQow7A (last section)

Incel Wiki, incels.me 1 Comments [8/5/2018 8:53:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139524

Normie



Normies are those embarrassments that listen to protest songs like "Pretender" and make a "fuck da man" post on social media about it. They often claim underdog status but are above the center of the social hierarchy. By and large, normies love to play a game of cat and mouse with reality; mostly virtue signalling and talking themselves up while burning strawmen they collectively target because they're told to. Strawmen like incels...

Minor Success Objects

Normies, failing at being sex objects, go for being a success object by wageslaving for 40 years. Although, unlike pure betabuxxers who are only valued for their money, they will have at least a small degree of physical attractiveness to women. Enough, at least, for being intimate with a random woman who's drunk at a bar after an hour of 'game' aka manipulation. They'll often find someone willing to accept their money, have kids, and pretend everything is fine when they force their way of life down your throat while simultaneously bitching to anybody that'll listen about everything under the sun.

Exerting dominance over others

They'll slink off to tell everyone they were right about you being a loser when you try to tell them as much (probably on reddit). There is no winning when dealing with a normie because, holy fucking shit, if you come close they will try very hard to ruin you life.

As of the advent of shitposting on the internet, normies will form Lynch mobs to fuck with people just to flex their muscles. Beware, because the whole time they're working nonstop to get people on the bottom of the social ladder to kill themselves.

It's their ego that makes them shit out advice. Their ego makes them pretend they give a fuck about ANYTHING. Because even if you ally with the normalfags, they will inevitably betray you. They also claim the high ground while doing so, of course.

Incel Wiki, Incel Wiki 1 Comments [8/5/2018 8:53:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139521

Ms. Jeong’s behavior can be partly explained by the peculiarities of Korean culture. Korean women are accustomed to being dominated by men. Not patronized, condescended to or exploited, but straight up dominated.

Men who don’t behave as expected are subjected to what Roissy would call “shit tests,” which involve insults, deprecation both subtle and overt, and psychological emasculation. Korean women even go after their sons in this manner, which goes some way toward explaining the volcanic rage that has led a number of young Korean men to go on shooting rampages.

My bet is that Ms. Jeong has had some intense but dysfunctional relationships with white men that have left her cultural expectations unfulfilled. The problem being that Western men don’t dominate so much as they patronize women, which to Koreans is weird and aggravating.

Her response has been to hurl insults at white men in order to goad them into a properly wrathful and dominant attitude toward her. This is to be expected from Korean women. The only way to get them to stop is to give in and treat them like a doormat.

It sounds worse to Westerners than it really is. For the most part it involves ritual submission; one Korean woman I worked with in China proudly described how she washed her husband’s feet every day when he came home from work. I found this puzzling, but she insisted that she really enjoyed serving him in this manner, and I didn’t detect any hint of resentment in her expression, but rather the opposite.

There is a darker side, however; apparently wife-beating is common among Koreans, but they take that in stride and most agree that it is usually due to wifely misbehavior or rebelliousness.

So, as academics would say, one should view Ms. Jeong’s outbursts “through the lens” of her native culture and try to sympathize. All she really wants, after all, is for the objects of her affection to treat her the way a proper Korean lady ought to be treated.

Bill P, Unz 0 Comments [8/5/2018 8:52:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 139513



While I STRONGLY disagree with her being allowed anywhere near a teaching position again , and I do think she should have been punished by being forced on a sex offender registry.... her crime is not the same as when a man does it.

Men and women are not interchangeable. Tabula rasa is bullshit and anyone implying it is a propagandist of the highest order. This is one of the biggest contentions I have with many people on this subreddit, they want to play along with the commie bullshit of tabula rasa despite us knowing that it's bullshit.....

Don't play that game. Not saying that's what OP did, but often times people will respond with what I have mentioned and I am pre-emptively striking.

Yes it is,

When a woman has sex with someone under-age, it is rape!

When a man has sex with someone under-age, it is rape!

Having sex with someone under-age is rape! I don't give a fuck who had sex with who!!

No.

No.

No.

Rape by etymological hard-lock definition means force and violence. A breach of age restrictive protocol does not qualify. The grossly misnamed "Statutory rape" is not actual rape unless the target is 12 or younger, in which case I will concede that point.

In simple terms, not all so-called "rape" is equal and to suggest otherwise is pure unadulterated idiocy.

Fantastic opinion you got there. Should I (40 year old male) be able to go out looking for a 14 year old girl to have sex with? As long as she consents, it's all good, right? You are one sick individual for this opinion

Fantastic strawman argument you got there.

Try again, little one.

It's considered a straw man if all he did was switch genders of the situation? I'm not sure you know what a straw man is. Your IQ may be under 18 and like to get fucked but that doesn't apply to children.

He grossly misrepresented my argument, and you are doing the same, what a joke.

You tabula rasa loonies are beneath the level of a child.

I think victim impact should be part of any sentencing.

I work with male survivors and don't know the research, so maybe you could enlighten us.

Half the survivors I work with had female perpetrators. They would disagree with your last sentence. They found their sexual assault by a woman crippling.

Don't be a joke.

her crime is not the same as when a man does it.

It's exactly the same, because it's about age, and position of authority. She raped a minor, while in a position of authority.

Nope.

Men and women are not interchangeable. You can try to pretend otherwise, little tabula rasa acolyte, but reality does not bend to your emotion.

I had sex with a (at least) 24 year old when I was 14.

She was my sisters friend & offered to help me study. She never did & instead we spent a month fucking.

I thought it was cool at the time, it was not. She was gross, a loser, and a predator.

It normalized some things in my mind that were not good. It also let me think some things I did in the future were okay, they weren’t.

I hurt people I care about, and one reason is because this event and others taught me the wrong lessons about what is okay and what isn’t.

Adults should not have sex with children, it’s that simple.

Strawman argument, yawn.

TheMythof_Feminism, r/MensRights 5 Comments [8/5/2018 8:51:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 139503

Women do not solve difficult problems, especially problems relating to proper behavior and discipline. This insanity is the product of feminism, which puts empathy for the perpetrator over responsibility and the necessity for everyone following rules of respect and decency. Women need to call men back to running institutions, and let them do the hard work, make the difficult decisions, and go through the physical confrontations of fixing the deteriorating attitudes of certain sub-groups within young America. This country was built by men, not women. Women create life, men create society. It has always been that way, and now that women are abandoning their part and usurping that of men, they are making a right hash of it. But of course, it's shameful to criticize women, so we must all find other reasons to blame for these horrible developments. Feminism is destroying the West. The choice is clear -- to be made by women as well as men: let those who can do the job best do it. That is men.?


Andrew Christopher , YouTube 2 Comments [8/5/2018 8:44:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 139502

Can I just say that this subreddit is the only place I feel sane?

I'm a millennial (I only mention that bc it seems everyone my age is obsessed with TGism), bisexual woman married to a man and this subreddit is the only place I don't feel f*cking crazy!!! I can't tell anyone how I feel though for fear I'll be seen as a bigot or ignorant. I've been seriously disturbed by the backwards mindset of transgenderism for years - starting in Feminist Theory in college. My professor posed this very question: If we truly believe as feminists that our gender does not define our capabilities, why the hell do people insist on changing their gender? Because they "feel" a certain way? It reinforces the idea that only women are supposed to cry or have close friendships or love men. I know I'm preaching to the choir hear, it just feels so good to get this all off my chest.

It also drives me absolutely mad that TG is seen as SOOOOOOO BRAAAAVE and people are elbowing each other out of the way to use certain bathrooms and be allowed on sports teams, be considered women for the purpose of pursuing lesbian relationships, say they've felt this all their lives, it's medically accepted and yet lesbians are still raped, abused, mistreated, and discriminated again every second of the day. These men want to control a woman so desperately that they decide to create their own "ideal" woman. Where my ugly trans chicks at, huh? *crickets* That's what I thought. Even if they don't fit into societal standards of pretty, they all seem to striving for that ideal. It's disgusting and sad.

I cannot stand this trend. I'm a psychiatric professional and I cannot see this as anything but mental illness brought on and/or encouraged by the radical left/men who have internalized homophobia. Our spaces are being invaded, our identity is being invaded. It's utter madness and I can't stand it! I'm so glad this community exists.

SeverelyModerate, r/GenderCritical 2 Comments [8/5/2018 8:44:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139501

It's okay, sexual abuse survivors, TIM's dicks have a "different energy" so pop a xan and get over it, cool?

(artificialgraymatter)

A trans gal's sexuality is docile, patient, hesitant, fragile.

Because a woman’s sexuality is docile, patient, hesitant, fragile—amirite?

I’m impressed they can say that with a straight face. And call themselves feminists.

But then again, they are men....

I’m even more impressed libfems can listen to that with a straight face. And call themselves feminists.

But then again, they are the “right” men.

And a woman’s sexuality is docile, patient, hesitant, fragile. Right libfems? Right?? Remember that when Mr. McDomly CisHet MRA tells you so.

(KeeperoftheSeeds)
I kind of feel the need to hunt down this other nasty article to post comparison quotes. I remember it’s some TiM claiming trans women have better sex than nasty ole boring cis women and our musty vaginas. He claims all sorts of bs like neovags/inverted penises are “fresher” than normal vaginas and that cis women are often “too frigid” in bed and that TiMs are so much more wild and aggressive and willing to be feminine and sexy.

It was a hot fucking mess and full of obvious dude being obvious that his trans identity was a kink he uses to be feminine and talk about being fucked.

Seems likes there’s a reason so many of these dudes start their trans journey with sissy or hypno porn or stealing female family members underwear. Fucking kinksters.

(LittleOwl12)
Don't see how they can be fresher seeing as they have bacteria doctors can't even identify.

(angrytardis)
Yet if you turn them down it’s all “choke on my lady dick”

(pixipod)
But somehow them saying this doesn't trigger their dysphoria.

(XXisBornFemale)

It never occurs to them that women either like doing bjs or they don't - that it's a preference we can have based on our own thoughts and feelings. They coax and coerce and go for the most manipulative hard sell. It makes me think they know jackshit about female sexuality and wouldn't appreciate anything about it if they did know.

Men don't see us as people, as individuals that want and need varied things.

Like a toaster. It exists for you to stick your bread in. You don't ask the toaster if it is ok to put bread in the slot. In fact, it's very convenient that the toaster can't talk. Because then you would have to listen to it and ignore it if it said no or explain to it that it doesn't matter if it wants bread put into the slot, because it exists to have bread put in it, and that is the only way that the existence of the toaster can be fulfilled.

This is why those sex dolls will never be programmed to talk. Unless it is to agree with everything that a man says to it.

(Red_Dahlia221)
There's zero requirement that trans people take any hormones or do any physical transition at all. Nor are they defined by any type of dysphoria, and I have seen trans males say they like their penis. It would be great if there were ANY criteria other than self ID. So this article is BS.

(KawaiiHarunezumi)
Trans women's brains are exactly the same, however, or they wouldn't write rapey shit like this.

(TerribleConfusion)
Why the fuck can't they just accept that an all-woman event focused on yonic massage might be the wrong place for them? They just want to push every fucking boundary they ever find, don't they? I'd be so uncomfortable in that situation - one person sitting around fondling their penis in a room where nineteen women are doing yoni massage.

And it really creeps me out that this person is a "sex-positive events facilitator" who has so little respect for other people's boundaries and comfort. That is a recipe for badness.

(felinecentric)

they carry a different energy.

Dafuq even is that? They make sexuality sound like feng shui or like thetans in Scientology.

A man's penis swaggers and struts, conquers and acquires, penetrates. A trans gal's genitals generally carry none of this energy

I think the translady doth protest too much. As an actual woman observing it objectively, I know that penises don't swagger and strut, they're more like eroded sausages that inflate with desperation and yearning. To hide from the melancholy nature of this, a man imagines the penis as a powerful weapon. What this writer is displaying is typical male anxiety about how sex makes you vulnerable.

And he keeps calling grown women (and men) 'gals'. Ew.

some TERFs, r/GenderCritical 0 Comments [8/5/2018 8:37:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 139499

Everything she touched turned to ruin. I got tired of her losing the mail, so I built a two foot deep mailbox, because I couldn't find one big enough to buy. I built it, put a lock on it, and mounted it to the inside of the door. I cut a big hole through the door for magazine sized mail. She wasn't allowed to touch the mail. This is considered “abuse” by today's scumbag judges and lawyers, but they aren't the ones who get in trouble when the bills don't get paid, because your wife is a knucklehead who cannot even be responsible with the mail. Multiply this times a thousand and it describes my 18 years of marriage! I learned the hard way that there is the engagement ring, the wedding ring and then THE SUFFERING!!! After 10 years since the divorce, I'm still recovering.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 4 Comments [8/5/2018 8:37:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139494

When you take over the institutions, the real agenda comes out.



(Dingus_Incel)
Ever since the rise of Trump the far left in the West have pretty much revealed themselves for what they truly are. I'm not a huge Trump fan and have a lot of problems with him. But I'm glad his presence started panicking the elites so much they played their entire hand and just admitted what they have always wanted to do.

Feminism really was about female supremacy, racial equality was just anti-white, atheism was just anti-Christian, they really do want some type of weird quasi-socialst economy and open borders. They do genuinely have disdain for the West and its people and want to replace them. I used to think it was all a nonsense conspiracy but I was disappointed to find out there was a lot more truth to the "globalist agenda" than I thought.

(fuckbitchesman)
Liberals, feminists, SJWs and leftist media hate Trump so that's all the reason I need to support him.

(incelicious)
Well, foids are worth trillions to the economy the way they spend. And not only do they spend their own money, but they spend the money of all the men around them and the government’s money. Of course corporations are pushing for feminism. Men tend to save their money and invest, not blow it on handbags and vagina cream

(notreallymuch)
Feminism is more about female and Chad supremacy. They wouldn't like to see Chad losing his supremacy.

(homey-dont-play-dat)
Desdain for the west is so illogical, they are part of the west. Only thing I can think of are the zionist jews who want revenge on white europe for the holocaust. So they used all their influence to social engineer the west for the past 80 years. But that doesn'to make sense as well. George Soros admitted he sought out and delivered Jews to be registered and or deported. Many Zionists aren't even Jews. The Zionist Jews are mainly white Europeans and Czech. The rich Zionists were never at harm because they could buy their way to Israel when Hitler needed money to fund his war. Only thing I can think of are the zionist jews who just want to create chaos for the sake of chaos. Of from which "can arise zion". They are sick.

(incelicious)
She’s right. Let’s define feminism for what it really is: a movement by sub8 women to make 8+/10 Chads available to them, while making sub8 men better and more cuckolded orbiters, and wishing for the genocide of sub5 men.

(throwawayirl3)
To date, I haven't met a self-defined feminist that didn't get salty when I refused to call myself a feminist even though I made it clear I believe in equality.

Now I see why.

(The_Indigo_Man)
Well yeah obviously everyone deep down knows feminism is nothing more than an ideology based on female supremacy, entitlement and empowerment. Feminism is no different to ISIS. There primary end goal is to eventually begin cutting men's heads off.

some incels, r/Braincels 2 Comments [8/5/2018 8:36:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 2