Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A serious question not meant to offend, but Why do democrat's love feminism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A serious question not meant to offend, but Why do democrat's love feminism?

    As the title says, and I am being serious: Why do democrat's love feminism? What do they really gain from it? Is it just to create turmoil and chaos to get supporters (Money and popularity/power)?

    I mean democrats signed the Violence Against Women Act, signed by the president at the time Bill Clinton, the bill was even drafted by Joe Biden!

    The definition of rape was literally changed to have the word "penetration" in 2012.....2012 people! When Obama was/is president! It's all right here (First Paragraph):

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/J...12-ag-018.html

    That's literally saying that if don't have a penis you can't commit the crime, which we all know is ridiculous. That's like saying only a person with a dick can commit murder.

    They also change the statistics of rape to NOT include rape by women! That's insane! (http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...ts-in-NCVS-now)

    I say democrats because it seems like big time republicans like Rush L., Bill O Reilly, or all of FOX news is to a degree against feminists/feminism.

    And I guess my other question would be: Do you really think that Hillary Clinton will make a great president?
    Feminism: Making men perpetual trouble makers and making women perpetual victims - it hurts everyone.
    Feminism isn't about a "sisterhood", it's about victimhood.

  • #2
    to be serious people like the ones you listed are against 'feminism' but tend to support most legal changes that feminists pput into place, they just use different language to justify it. Look at all the work on this site and other MRA sites showing how feminism and traditionalism tend to be strange bedfellows.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Reyeko View Post
      to be serious people like the ones you listed are against 'feminism' but tend to support most legal changes that feminists pput into place, they just use different language to justify it. Look at all the work on this site and other MRA sites showing how feminism and traditionalism tend to be strange bedfellows.
      I think many people in the MRA movement are quite aware that neither the left nor the right is particularly interested in being opposed to misandry. They just use different methods of imposed shame to control men.

      If you're a Republican, your original sin is God given, because Adam was tempted by Eve and he was such a dumb schmuck obsessed with his woman that he'd risk the wrath of God for her. As a result, men are vilified for lust, the guardians of female virtue, expected to give sacrifice for a woman, expected to serve and protect women.

      If you're a Democrat, your original sin is Patriarchy, as a man you have a magical and invisible thing called privilege which you've used to oppress women unconsciously your whole life. Your sexual desires are not normal, but a mutation inherent in all men that causes them to exhibit "rape culture." This is obvious because women have two XX Chromosomes and science clearly shows that the Y chromosome originally evolved from an X chromosome (this was many millions of years ago and species have been undergoing natural selection for millions of years with a Y chromosome as a normal part of biology, but you're expected to believe that this is why, as feminists insist, men are evil. Because the Y chromosome is, even after millions of years of evolutionary refinement, an aberration, a deviation, something inferior). You're expected to sacrifice, show deference to women, serve and protect them.
      Last edited by Androgen; 03-11-2014, 05:54 AM.
      "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't qualify your statements with "no offense but..." or "not meaning to offend..." just say what you mean. Own it.
        Did you leave it better than you found it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Do they love feminism? Or is it just what they are raised with? Do republicans love Christianity? Or was it just instilled in them?

          Comment


          • #6
            Politicians, regardless if they have an R or a D beside their name, love victims. Victims means votes and increases their standing with voters.
            https://christianrestoration.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              In the UK the left is just as bad as the right in promoting misandry. Same in New Zealand
              Be still and cool in thine own mind and spirit.
              George Fox

              Comment


              • #8
                Democrats love feminism for the same reason they love Islam, broken families, and gangster rap - because the right wing hates it.
                "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                Comment


                • #9
                  Republicans want you in a harness pulling more than your weight like a good little plow horse, "faster!" tich tich tich

                  Democrats just want your wallet, "we can do so much good, with your money."

                  Both have the same result, enslaving men under the pretense of bettering society. Now let's look at the flipside of the coin...

                  Republics want women to marry a good man - who will take care of them - and produce more future tax payers.

                  Democrats say they'll take care of women better than any husband, and will punish any ex-husband according to apparent or imagined crime.

                  Hmmm... I think I'll skip the vote thank you very much.
                  RWBY is Legend. Honey Badgers

                  Women Against Feminism.

                  Logic trumps ignorance, but emotion retards edification.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                    Hmmm... I think I'll skip the vote thank you very much.
                    That's no solution either... At least vote third party if you're not going to vote.
                    "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Democrats love feminism because they are politicians who award political patronage jobs to women -- including feminist women. If you read about what Janet Halley has called "governance feminism," which talks about feminism in the police force, you might be able to pick up on the connection. Democratic politicians award government jobs to loyal followers -- feminists are a large subset of the public employee unions and other political groups that essentially pander to politicians and get "nice jobs" awarded to them for their loyalty to politicians, but not for their good work on the job. Feminsim is thus a bit of a union in a way. It's just a sneaky dishonest one that obscures from most people it's real agenda with all sorts of flowery fluff. That's why they want to say it's about jobs for women -- they'll do to take away from their sleazy image and make themselves seem wholesome. Saying it's a women's movement really helps to pull the wool over a lot of eyes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Androgen View Post
                        That's no solution either... At least vote third party if you're not going to vote.
                        Remember you not the chant "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!" a few years back?

                        The fact of the matter is, the way the USA's voting is set up, it really doesn't matter who you vote for most of the time. If you're a red voter in a blue state, you may as well stay home, because it's pretty much 100% guaranteed your vote is worthless. You may be able to go "yay, we fucked with the popular vote, but no one gives a fuck about that anyway, so that was a waste of time!". The reverse is also true as a blue voter in a red state, or a third party voter in either red or blue states.

                        The only people who have a vote that really matters, are swing states, and even then, those are only valuable to the point that they can slightly nudge the otherwise powerful red/blue dichotomy slightly to one side or the other.

                        If there were enough people voting third party to actually get even *ONE* state to turn grey? Now that'd wake politicians the fuck up in the USA, because they'd suddenly realize that they no longer have a monopoly on the choices, and you'd see a massive amount of political upheaval out of fear.

                        To be perfectly blunt, even though the liberals and the conservatives (or democrats and republicans, whatever) have wildly different methodology, in the end, they mostly agree on 90% of the topics they discuss. The question isn't whether to ban abortions or not, for example, it's simply a matter of what the fine tuned specifics are on when it's appropriate; both choices are fine with abortions, and the only difference between the two is whether it's alright to let the mother choose, even when it shows clearly poor judgement, or if there are situations where it would be deemed abusive. The rest of the issues aren't really that much different, to be blunt.

                        As Shadizar mentioned, the end result is largely the same, regardless of which option you pick; you're merely choosing the methodology of how you want to go about being screwed over. You're screwed either way, no matter what you choose, it's just the particular flavour of how that you get to choose, and that's not really much of a choice - it's not even a matter of "the lesser of two evils", so much as just "pick your poison".

                        In the end, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the politicians win.

                        Anyway, back to the original question: why do democrats love feminism?

                        It's simple, really. The democrats tend to focus upon backing anything that SOUNDS like it benefits the average person on the street, especially in cities. This goes for every social justice concept out there, from minority benefits to health care. It doesn't matter if it actually backfires in their face and directly harms the people they're supposedly trying to help - all that matters is that it LOOKS like they're trying to help that group.

                        Conversely, the republicans mostly tend to focus upon backing anything that SOUNDS like it benefits the economy and the workers & businesses. In this model of thought, if you help the people make more money, you don't need to provide freebies in the first place since they can just afford it instead. The problem here, again, is that it doesn't matter if it actually backfires in their face and directly harms the people they're supposedly trying to help - all that matters, again, is that it LOOKS like they're trying to help that group.

                        In both cases, you see retarded ass laws being passed where things directly go back asswards to what they claim they're trying to do. Feminism hurts women, as one example of the idiocy of the left side of things, and corporate bailouts fuck over the whole concept of a free market system in the first place on the right side of things.

                        In the end, both sides want to look like they help out more than they actually want to help out. Being useful doesn't get you votes; looking like you're useful does. This is how politics has devolved in general. The key problem is simply that the average voter doesn't really know what they're talking about; they have a preconceived set of notions of what the two sides represent, and all they can see are how "good" their side looks, and how "bad" the opposing side does. They see only that "my side looks like they're actually helping with X issue (which they're not, they just look like it), while the opposite side clearly failed in what they said they were doing (true)".

                        It's confirmation bias, and both sides are half-right. Both of them look like they're being useful at a cursory, surface glance, but the moment you look into things deeper, you realize that they both make the same choice to throw time and money at pretty bandaid fixes over ugly and expensive core problem fixes, and sure, they'll argue that the other side is wrong because the other side is only doing bandaid fixes, and they'll provide the "real fix", but that's only when they can use it as an excuse to poke at the other sides' bandaid fixes, and both sides do this pretty much consistently.

                        In any case, the end result is that you'll get democrats generally backing anything that looks like a social issue, and they'll flail blindly at it, probably making a bigger mess in trying to help than if they had have just left it alone. Hence... feminism.

                        If the voters would stop fucking voting for lip service and bandaid fixes to issues they didn't understand, maybe you'd have something worth voting for. The closest thing you have at the moment for that, though, is the libertarian movement that's starting up, and even that's not much better since it mostly follows the same methodology of just supporting whatever looks good, rather than what is good. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to gain any traction at all. The biggest advantage it has going for it, though, is the emphasis upon smaller government, which means that yes, it'll still fuck up as much as the other two will, but at least it won't have enough power to fuck things up on quite the same scale, so that's something.
                        It doesn't matter if they're right; if they can't prove they're right, then they\'re wrong, no matter how right they may be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Katsuni View Post
                          It's simple, really. The democrats tend to focus upon backing anything that SOUNDS like it benefits the average person on the street, especially in cities. This goes for every social justice concept out there, from minority benefits to health care. It doesn't matter if it actually backfires in their face and directly harms the people they're supposedly trying to help - all that matters is that it LOOKS like they're trying to help that group.

                          Conversely, the republicans mostly tend to focus upon backing anything that SOUNDS like it benefits the economy and the workers & businesses. In this model of thought, if you help the people make more money, you don't need to provide freebies in the first place since they can just afford it instead. The problem here, again, is that it doesn't matter if it actually backfires in their face and directly harms the people they're supposedly trying to help - all that matters, again, is that it LOOKS like they're trying to help that group.

                          In both cases, you see retarded ass laws being passed where things directly go back asswards to what they claim they're trying to do. Feminism hurts women, as one example of the idiocy of the left side of things, and corporate bailouts fuck over the whole concept of a free market system in the first place on the right side of things.
                          They're all on the same side - theirs. The rest is just showmanship mostly.

                          I don't usually give Jesse Ventura much credit because he likes to be scientifically illiterate in his conspiracy shows - but when he tells me the CIA dragged him into the basement of the capitol to give him the third degree when he won the election back in the day - I do believe him.
                          "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Androgen View Post
                            That's no solution either... At least vote third party if you're not going to vote.
                            You can find a lot of my attitude on voting here; it's a good watch if you have the time. Basically what it comes down to is, "yeah sure, you won the vote, but if the voting body is merely 30% of the total population, can you really call it a victory?"

                            The baby boomers, steadfast voters, are dying out.

                            The rest of us are suffering under institutionalized engineered apathy.

                            A good portion of the potential voters, are either being sent to jail, or having their lives ruined by the very government sworn to protect them. And to top that off, there are even fewer of them, due in large part to first world family downsizing. The western governments have consistently boot-fucked this bottleneck potential voters.

                            The only voters left with any stake in the game in the coming decade, will be women. And they will continue to vote in a manner that puts their kids into slavery due to national debt.

                            Don't marry, stay under the tax bracket, keep your nose clean and stock pile, and don't fucking vote. An economic collapse is coming, it's inevitable; no politician wants it to happen on their watch, they will do everything in their power to postpone for the duration or their term. The only real answer to the impending problem, is a politician with the balls to lay it all out on the line, and force it to take place, let it crash, and then pick up the pieces; such a man will be a hero, I would dedicate my life to writing legends of this person, that his limo was a dump-truck because his balls were so fucking big. But it won't happen, because the government and the bureaucracy depend on monetary status quo; a crash would put ninety percent of those money shufflers out of work.
                            RWBY is Legend. Honey Badgers

                            Women Against Feminism.

                            Logic trumps ignorance, but emotion retards edification.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                              Don't marry, stay under the tax bracket, keep your nose clean and stock pile, and don't fucking vote. An economic collapse is coming, it's inevitable; no politician wants it to happen on their watch, they will do everything in their power to postpone for the duration or their term. The only real answer to the impending problem, is a politician with the balls to lay it all out on the line, and force it to take place, let it crash, and then pick up the pieces; such a man will be a hero, I would dedicate my life to writing legends of this person, that his limo was a dump-truck because his balls were so fucking big. But it won't happen, because the government and the bureaucracy depend on monetary status quo; a crash would put ninety percent of those money shufflers out of work.
                              Vote, it never hurts to vote.
                              "Women are like that they dont acquire knowledge of people we are for that they are just born with a practical fertility of suspicion that makes a crop every so often and usually right they have an affinity for evil for supplying whatever the evil lacks in itself for drawing it about them instinctively as you do bed-clothing in slumber fertilising the mind for it until the evil has served its purpose whether it ever existed or no" - William Faulkner

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X