Page 26 of 64 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 634

Thread: Who Agrees Fourth Wave Feminism is Toxic Femininity And Should Be Abolished?

  1. Top | #251
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,710
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    1,939
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Lots of black gangsters grew up worshiping Tony Montana as a hero. Not a peep from leftists.

    Good point.

    Except apart from the fact that you are [claiming something that is not true].
    Last edited by Rhea; 10-12-2019 at 09:49 PM. Reason: removed insult

  2. Top | #252
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,930
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,180
    Rep Power
    0
    Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

    A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

    "If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle

  3. Top | #253
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,015
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    5,926
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

    A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

    "If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle
    Ideally everything in life would be fair.

    Certainly, it is not fair that women are not as strong as men, on average. Hell, it is not fair that my own androgen resistance means that I could not even start to attempt to get a stereotypically "masculine" body, or that the only way I could get a nice ass and thick hips would be to supplement with estrogen and accept the emotional and personality impacts that would create.

    It is not fair that I cannot get pregnant and bear and five birth to a child.

    There are certainly a great many changes that would occur to the human condition if I had any say in bringing such things about.

    Life didn't evolve for "fair". Pre-social evolution didn't care about "fair".

    And so of course social ethics has to work with what it has: shitty, sexual asymmetry.

    So in an imperfect world, yeah, we have policies that have to acknowledge that imperfect reality as it is.

    The father should get a say; whether they accept being a father. Society should havw a burden to accept this consent to Parenthood or lack thereof, through supporting the mother to the best of our abilities, should she decide to be a mother anyway. We should educate our children of the value of acting as a parent regardless of the genetics of the child you are raising and decry those who preach against loving some child not 'of their loins'.

    Those are toxic realities. But reality is sometimes toxic. You, not I, believe that a "loving" God created those toxic realities.

  4. Top | #254
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,930
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,180
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

    A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

    "If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle
    Ideally everything in life would be fair.

    Certainly, it is not fair that women are not as strong as men, on average. Hell, it is not fair that my own androgen resistance means that I could not even start to attempt to get a stereotypically "masculine" body, or that the only way I could get a nice ass and thick hips would be to supplement with estrogen and accept the emotional and personality impacts that would create.

    It is not fair that I cannot get pregnant and bear and five birth to a child.

    There are certainly a great many changes that would occur to the human condition if I had any say in bringing such things about.

    Life didn't evolve for "fair". Pre-social evolution didn't care about "fair".

    And so of course social ethics has to work with what it has: shitty, sexual asymmetry.

    So in an imperfect world, yeah, we have policies that have to acknowledge that imperfect reality as it is.

    The father should get a say; whether they accept being a father. Society should havw a burden to accept this consent to Parenthood or lack thereof, through supporting the mother to the best of our abilities, should she decide to be a mother anyway. We should educate our children of the value of acting as a parent regardless of the genetics of the child you are raising and decry those who preach against loving some child not 'of their loins'.

    Those are toxic realities. But reality is sometimes toxic. You, not I, believe that a "loving" God created those toxic realities.
    Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

    The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

    A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

    Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.

  5. Top | #255
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,015
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    5,926
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

    A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

    "If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle
    Ideally everything in life would be fair.

    Certainly, it is not fair that women are not as strong as men, on average. Hell, it is not fair that my own androgen resistance means that I could not even start to attempt to get a stereotypically "masculine" body, or that the only way I could get a nice ass and thick hips would be to supplement with estrogen and accept the emotional and personality impacts that would create.

    It is not fair that I cannot get pregnant and bear and five birth to a child.

    There are certainly a great many changes that would occur to the human condition if I had any say in bringing such things about.

    Life didn't evolve for "fair". Pre-social evolution didn't care about "fair".

    And so of course social ethics has to work with what it has: shitty, sexual asymmetry.

    So in an imperfect world, yeah, we have policies that have to acknowledge that imperfect reality as it is.

    The father should get a say; whether they accept being a father. Society should havw a burden to accept this consent to Parenthood or lack thereof, through supporting the mother to the best of our abilities, should she decide to be a mother anyway. We should educate our children of the value of acting as a parent regardless of the genetics of the child you are raising and decry those who preach against loving some child not 'of their loins'.

    Those are toxic realities. But reality is sometimes toxic. You, not I, believe that a "loving" God created those toxic realities.
    Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

    The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

    A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

    Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.
    Ah, so you think that one example where our codified ethics of our laws makes some attempt at making concessions to the realities of sexual asymmetry means that what? All of our laws are beholden to that same asymmetrical concession?

    I agree, things shouldn't work like that. Then, I also agree that every fatherless child should be supported by the state that allows a father to not be present in the lives of their children. It would certainly be better than the reality of living in a society where a deadbeat can run out on their child and stuff their children of the support they need both emotionally and financially, as exists today.

    Sadly it doesn't work like that.

    As it is, you literally argue for a world where women are denied the right to abort a child. It's almost like you and everyone like you want to deny women even this one power over their own bodies, as if you hate women and love men.

  6. Top | #256
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,930
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,180
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

    The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

    A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

    Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.
    Ah, so you think that one example where our codified ethics of our laws makes some attempt at making concessions to the realities of sexual asymmetry means that what? All of our laws are beholden to that same asymmetrical concession?

    I agree, things shouldn't work like that. Then, I also agree that every fatherless child should be supported by the state that allows a father to not be present in the lives of their children. It would certainly be better than the reality of living in a society where a deadbeat can run out on their child and stuff their children of the support they need both emotionally and financially, as exists today.

    Sadly it doesn't work like that.

    As it is, you literally argue for a world where women are denied the right to abort a child. It's almost like you and everyone like you want to deny women even this one power over their own bodies, as if you hate women and love men.
    The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

    If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

    Think!

  7. Top | #257
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,015
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    5,926
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

    The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

    A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

    Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.
    Ah, so you think that one example where our codified ethics of our laws makes some attempt at making concessions to the realities of sexual asymmetry means that what? All of our laws are beholden to that same asymmetrical concession?

    I agree, things shouldn't work like that. Then, I also agree that every fatherless child should be supported by the state that allows a father to not be present in the lives of their children. It would certainly be better than the reality of living in a society where a deadbeat can run out on their child and stuff their children of the support they need both emotionally and financially, as exists today.

    Sadly it doesn't work like that.

    As it is, you literally argue for a world where women are denied the right to abort a child. It's almost like you and everyone like you want to deny women even this one power over their own bodies, as if you hate women and love men.
    The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

    If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

    Think!
    Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

    Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

    Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is

  8. Top | #258
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,930
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,180
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

    If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

    Think!
    Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

    Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

    Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is
    You don't agree that if poor people stopped getting benefits, they would spend their money on the basic needs for the family instead of booze and drugs?

    If the families basic needs are taken care of because of the government, now they have extra money to party! Why do you think poor people are the most likely to do drugs and smoke cigarettes? Because whenever they have extra money, they run to the liquor store.

  9. Top | #259
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,710
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    1,939
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

    If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

    Think!
    Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

    Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

    Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is
    You don't agree that if poor people stopped getting benefits, they would spend their money on the basic needs for the family instead of booze and drugs?

    If the families basic needs are taken care of because of the government, now they have extra money to party! Why do you think poor people are the most likely to do drugs and smoke cigarettes? Because whenever they have extra money, they run to the liquor store.
    You ever going to back up your assertions with any facts, champ? Any studies that back up your claim?

  10. Top | #260
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,422
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,163
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post

    The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

    If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

    Think!
    Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

    Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

    Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is
    You don't agree that if poor people stopped getting benefits, they would spend their money on the basic needs for the family instead of booze and drugs?
    I grew up poor, my mother was on welfare and food stamps some of the time. She did not ever spend money on booze and drugs.

    If the families basic needs are taken care of ,,,
    Our basic needs were not taken care of because the conservatives like Ronnie Raygun kept reducing funding.

    ...because of the government, now they have extra money to party!
    My mother did not party. We rarely even had birthday cakes on our birthdays.

    Why do you think poor people are the most likely to do drugs and smoke cigarettes?
    I am just speculating here, but perhaps sometimes drug addiction is a significant factor in causing poverty. But not vice versa. As for my mother, she was suffering from physical and mental health problems that got progressively worse over time. She had severe arthritis, digestive problems, and unofficially schizophrenia. She died at 55 years old.

    Because whenever they have extra money, they run to the liquor store.
    I would appreciate it if you didn't make counterfactual claims about my mother.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •