So, you're saying that the natural form of a "woman" is to act like a sloth? Why are women only allowed that privileged, meanwhile, whenever a men attempts to emulate that process, he's treated as a rapist?


You're saying that me problem isn't that I'm attracted to women, it's that I'm attracted to women who act like women? Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that a compliment?


I admit that I do want a girl who can act cutesy and girly, but I don't want her to act like that 24/7, nor force it, because I've seen enough media to know that it gets annoying after a while. In fact, that was one of the biggest gags in How To Lose a Guy In 10 Days.


Can us guys get a piece of that action? I honestly admit, I don't like being one undergoing the repression of having to put my hobbies on hold in order to bring in a paycheck to fund the household, who has to deviate and control his interests because it's not considered "masculine", and hates that alarm going off at 5 in the morning to spend the next hour exercising because I can't find work unless I maintain a fit body.


If I had that kind of mindset, why would I EVER desire to get married when I can receive the same results from reading a comic or playing a game?


To be quite honest, I find it more sad than anything else. I don't see where "hate" comes into an equation where the only thing I feel is pity.


You DO realize that there is a HUGE untapped market of men who desire women that look naturally beautiful, without all the cosmetics and surgeries, right? That's also why people are huge fans of tomboys.


WHERE THE HELL DO I SAY OR IMPLY THAT?! If anything, I know that a woman who cannot act slightest bit independent is one not worth considering as a companion.


So, anyone who doesn't consume the "right" amount of porn (By consuming too much or too little) suffers from mental problems? What? So sex in media serves a medical need? Okay...that make sense, and helps explains some things.


What's the point of this article, all it says is "80% of men admit to watching porn and that's a 'bad' things because...REASONS."


What's the point of this when it's talking about an area of the brain that grows and retracts in response to magnetic fields?


What's the point of this?


So, people are more likely to get divorced if they're impulsive about it, eventually pass the "honeymoon phase", and have no religious beliefs to back their reason for the entire institution of marriage?


Am I missing something, what's the point of these two? Especially in the former where Twatter and Facebook also have their own fair share of cheeze pizza problems as well.

________________

In some of the circles I post in, at lot of us guys assumed that it has something to do with women competing over the "limited availability" of "10/10 rich hot men", or attention-whoring for donation money. And, the only evidence we've really seen to back up this theory are Twitch streamers screeching over how v-tubers and sex dolls are taking all the attention away from them.

________________

Lol, I'm not even going to bother reading this because it sounds like the classic cringe case of "I spend too much time online, so I have no idea how the real world works," so if this is some kind or satire of subversive statement then congratz you got me hook, line and sinker.

But literally what does this title even mean? Like what is your definition of "women"? What socio-cultural and historical context is it based on?

Like as a tongue-in-cheek statement, I could say, "women were no longer able to be women when society became male dominated and women stopped being associated with spiritual powers/shamans," and it would technically be correct based on the historical context/meaning of "women" in ancient Japan.

Language, words and their meanings are created and re-evaluated by people, they are not some universal binding law. And so just like people, they are subject to change. So perhaps the problem is not that "women are not allowed to be women" (which again, this statement literally means nothing), but that whatever your framework of what a "woman" is, is changing.

I believe that to be fairly accurate.
Conflict sells. If you create an opposing force to an existing system pretending to be disadvantaged, hurt or oppressed, thats a great way to garner a following, clout, and in the end money.

That's helped by how the more promiment sites like reddit, twitter, twitch, etc. generate big echo-chambers.

Tearing down others is a great way to grow, not as a person but as a social entity. You'll see this more prominently with women because for some odd reason people are more sympathetic with them.

________________
in need of romance?
uncommon, sad, sweet

I must have read something completely different than you,'because I dont see how usrlessgoddess is "tearing down other women"

The traditional feminine is a woman wearing makeup but you can be feminine without makeup too. Just like there isnt one kind of mould every man has to fit into.

Its the freedom of choice.

Surely you jest. If you don't act 100% like a "traditional man" (Which is defined as a stupid, completely irrational, sex predator who do everything they can to steal, maim, and murder everything they see, thatssomehowoverthecourseof6000istheonlysourceofcivilizat iononthisdamnplanetbutthatsallcioncidencebecausemanevilgu rrrrrrr, and who's only source of "value" is apologetically functioning as a walking purse for women), you're immediately labelled as a cock-sucking faggot (Even by so-called "Progressives" ), or were born as the wrong "gender" and need to be pumped full of drugs while undergoing sterilization and a boob job.

________________

While the dude is obviously exaggerating, it is actually true do a certain degree.
If you ever heard about the Tinder ratio, it's about an average ratio that 80% of women compete for just 20% of men. You know the tall, muscle packed beasts of masculinity that totally make up the majority of the population...

Sure there doesn't have to be a mould everyone has to fit, you can still get lucky to find someone if you're not the type everyone desires. But it sure doesn't help and crosses you off the list for the majority...

But I agree that you don't have to wear make-up to be feminine or dress in frilly clothes. It's about what fits you.
You shouldn't be forced to be or act feminine but you also shouldn't condemn it.
People who rage at others (fictional or not) for being more attractive than them cause they didn't put in the effort are just worthless. Always blaming others' success for their own misfortune.

Last edited by Lorska at 9:09 am, May 5 2021

________________
in need of romance?
uncommon, sad, sweet

Wow.
I would hate to see the world as you see it.

Not sure if which gender you are belittling more: women or men. Your rhetoric is very hateful. I can only assume you post these things to troll, the other more twisted reason could be that you believe these theories you are spewing.

...and the prospect of that being the case is pretty horrific.

Guy complains women aren't allowed to be women

Saweetie and Doja Cat and Cardi B that are hyper sexual/feminine queens

"Are we a joke to you?"

________________

Always remember what Jesus said "Once you've worn chilled boxers you never go back..."
Saint Oniisan

Thank you for bringing up one of the few subjects where I actually agree with the Feminazis. "Hypersexuality", particularly the type practiced in the West, is disgusting. There's nothing tasteful or artistic about it, especially when they make it look so oily, greasy, and plastic. It's just the sexual equivalent of throwing all the shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. It's why I also severely dislike the bimbo fetish because it all just looks so silly and stupid. I get that the concept is suppose to be amping the qualities of cosmetics up to 11, but all I end up wonder is when the carnival music is going to start playing.


Honestly, the only countries I have seen capable of making something "hypersexual" actually look appealing are Japan and France.

Last edited by Transdude1996 at 2:20 pm, May 5 2021

________________

I think they're just trying to foment women as equals to men which is actually good (they do give a slightly different view to society amongst a long list other good stuff ).
Edit.:not numerical equality, but equality in standing(Ex.: salary breach is the salary difference between a man and a woman doung the samejobof ).

And the polar oposite si the USA 20's view of women as perfect housewives /almost objects you identify as being feminine . Your question/argument it's usually used "to oppose" women doing things that use to be associated with men. that usually by people with a more conservative view on life

It's an apparently innocent question, since as you see old media without thinking on this kind of stuff it's pretty common to ask yourself why the stereotype changed. But the damage comes when (as you just did) end up thinking it's bad for women to have important positions business positions because of supposedly having a worse skill-set (There is an unending list of self made successful business-women ).

Do you really think, any competitive business would put someone incompetent on the front line? All in all positive discrimination does exist ,sometimes to hide the not very equal society(Like the transexual football referee of Israel). But there is only one first and even those are useful .For example I was recently doing an essay on Neutrinos ,check Clyde Cowman y Federick Reines and see whose name appears first (causally the jewish guy that dedicated his whole life to neutrinos scarcely comes up first). They've (women in this topic) been so much time hidden and repudiated, that girls sometimes need that even if fake "up to date" reference to look up to and I bet the 20 estereotipe feminine housewife doesn't fit there.

The actual intent of the question is polarising the view to feminine women and non-feminine and making you think there is nothing in between and effectively establish a estereotipe on what modern women "are" and should "do" bringing it closer to the old stereotype to "the conservative" and associating a non-feminine and less pleasant estereotipe, like what USA people call "Karens" (which is a pretty abhorrent term in itself ).

Transdude1996 if I were you I'd be more preoccupied on how Koreans an Asia in general are making children want too be their version of idols. Which is basically being corporate disposable objects in pseudo slavery .And yes men with make up ,I bet you don't like that. 😛

Last edited by Joese at 12:38 pm, May 6 2021

But, that doesn't make any fucking sense. Rather than use the laws that already exist, they're undergoing a societal peer pressure operation that forces 50% of the population to abandon their goals and desires because it doesn't help inflate some arbitrary number that allows them to (Ironically) pronounce how much of a bigger dick they have when it comes to some vague concept of "equality"?


It's "good" to authoritatively dictate what actions people are allowed to do?


No, I agree that society should stop treating women like they're china-dolls to be idolized. After all, this mindset is the only reason why past killers like Lizze Borden were declared innocent.


You mean like how men used to wear dresses, skirts, and high heels?


Have you ever considered that stereotypes exist for a reason?


You're the one jumping to conclusions in that regard. I don't doubt and I know that women have been capable of creating, owning, and operating a business. What I am talking about is when they promote people, who are not prepared, qualified, nor capable of accomplishing the demands of their position, just because they were born with a certain set of sexual organs. If the individual was a man, and he was unprepared, unqualified, and incapable of executing his job, there wouldn't be any discussion; but, because the person is a women, suddenly that little detail is suppose to change "everything".


Yes. First of all, it's an easy way to get undesirables sacked without suffering a lawsuit due to them inevitably screwing up. Second, it follows the Dilbert principle, of promoting the people you cannot fire (For whatever reason) to positions of power where they can cause the least amount of damage.


So, you're in favor of discrimination, as long as it's "positive" discrimination, that doesn't account for the person's actions, achievements, impact, influence, position, or anything they are capable of doing, but DOES account for the person assigning themselves a certain label or just happening to be born with the correct genetics? DO YOU NOT REALIZE HOW ELITIST OF A POSITION THAT IS? And, you're the one talking about how we need to move "beyond" the so-called "discrimination" that was practiced in ages past. If you bothered to read ACTUAL history, you'd find that many the governors of past European colonies justified their irrational treatment of the natives as "being for their own good". And, while we take to slandering those people because "We know better", you're doing the exact same thing, except under the banner of "equality".


Meanwhile, in the past decade of a more "progressive" and "equal" society, a game developer, who was involved in the industry since the early 90's, was chased out of the game studio she helped build into a juggernaut, only for her literal replacement to then go on about how sexist gaming is.


I hate to break it to you, but "Karens" is just a term, exclusively used by underage retards online that want to sound edgy (Like the retards repeating Ebonic terms like "simp" and "thot" ) used to refer to the irrationally religious and conservative group that used to be referred to as "soccermoms". You know, the crazy hags that tried to make video games, music, films, TV, and literature illegal because "Think of the childrens!!!".


You DO know the Worst Korea is a feminist paradise, right? Even more so than Spain. If not, I suggest you look up the Daughter of Megalia.


If you want to talk about slavery in Asia, let's talk about China. Look, they may even be turning women in to sex slaves again.

________________

I'll try edit and put some quotes to make some stuff a bit clearer ,since I think what I meant and your conclusion on it are contradicting.


Yes I agree, done that way, it's a lazily done equality. Assuring at least 10%,would be one amongst many other better ways to do it (not that percentages themselves can change anything). The thing is many traditionally fields occupied by men exclusive are now being occupied by women EX.:medicine,various engineering branches... And I bet the stereotype of nurse doesn't do them any favour...Generalisations are always a dangerous thing,it's easy to convince people with them but it's still a fallacy and stereotypes were never meant to foment inclusiveness.

BTW: the example of the trans guy was an example of things done wrong(I was trying to be the devils advocate there) .I just wanted to state that it's less probable for a small girl to want to be a judge/mechanic... if she has never heard of one or is discouraged because it isn't feminine.

No measure is fool proof .Even if done with more thought it always lets people pass between the gaps, reaching positions they're unworthy of. I figureheads have always been a thing .But I bet the one whom puts them there knows what he's doing (or else the main problem is the one leading).And I repeat I'm strongly against generalising these methods.If I were in care the place I'd rule wouldn't be too ethical and similar to the jungle all focused on competitiveness, sciences and culture maybe.(In case you take it wrong think of it as a world for greenery with shorter patents where Gnu and free software roam free😛 ).

Many jobs and positions are unreachable to some. Ascending purely on hard work is a pipe dream, the world wasn't ever fair(the existence or not of figureheads won't change this).Unless you're the best at something and even then you need to do able to maintain yourself without being dragged down (always needing a minimum of other skill-sets or being close to someone who has what you lack). No millionaire is going to randomly leave everything to someone they don't know.


Sure I'll try to post sometime if there's a topic.

I might've derailed there from the topic, but I thought the comparisons were similar situations elsewhere and in different fields, since sometimes it's harder to see some things when looking closer to you. More or less what I meant is the question itself is usually guided in forums (from my POV) towards sometimes a bit extreme values. And what usually helps this situations is polarisation

Karens were just a good example that's up to date sometimes used as[b] straw-man[\b] ,have in mind that the ones using this term are slowly getting older (some political views appear this way).

And yup, I pitty the feminism movement in my country ,with some of it's sectors directed by extremists like Beatriz Gimeno😔(though as always even the most dumb extremists do a thing or two right in their life).

How feminine do you want them to be? As feminine as a fifties housewife good wife's guide wants women to be?

Is Pocahontas feminine? Elsa? Belle? Anne Hathaway from Devil Wear's Prada? Cruella? Jasmine? Margery Tyrell? Cersei Lannister? Ellaria Sand? Sansa Stark?

There's a lot of different feminities. Most women in movies and most women are feminine of center. They are more feminine than at least 75% of men, probably at least 80% to be honest.

The ones that never assert themselves and push back in the face of conflict...well they are not necessarily very interesting characters. And it's not always very easy or natural to live in a world where you have to defer to others and accommodate others all the time. And it can be a route that renders you utterly dependent on others and vulnerable to changes in external circumstances. Feminine wiles used to be most available tool for women, but it's a better tool if you are not utterly dependent on it.

A lot of working women trying to pursue masculine standards of success are not very satisfied. But in the 70, 80s, a lot of bored suburban housewives weren't either. Women can lose a lot of social capital and social avenues to move as they get older or if they don't match up to society's expectations of looks and successful feminine personality, regardless of their choices. Femininity is not the clear path to getting what women want as it is made out to be.

Last edited by VetaMega at 7:11 pm, May 6 2021

Out of curiosity, are you ESL? Only asking because it's little hard to read your posts.


If your argument wasn't bullshit, you wouldn't try to amend the original post 15 HOURS LATER. Or, you would try to clarify it in a later post.


Except, they're not. Actually look at what the data says. 100 years ago, in 1920, the same year that 19th amendment was passed (So, remember this was during a "sexist" society) the top occupations occupied by women were: teaching, nursing, secretarial positions, cashiers, and sales. Fast forward over a 100 years later to the present, and the top occupations occupied by women are STILL: teaching, nursing, secretarial positions, cashiers, and sales. In addition to that, let's actually look at the fields "men dominate" (By, at least, 97%): vehicle mechanics, carpentry, welding, electrical, metalworking, plumbing, roadwork, truck drivers, fork-lift drivers, and actual construction.

And, keep in mind, these positions, occupied almost exclusively by men, do not require a college degree. These positions, at the very most, they require a license or certification, which you can be achieved with a few hundred dollars and a couple months of studying. Also, to address the visible edit that I see you made in your previous post, the wage gap is a myth.


The same is happening for men as well, so it isn't a "sexist" problem no matter how you try to make it out to be. Companies are scrambling because they cannot find any blue collar workers because everyone is going into white collar work. And, the irony of it all is that more women are employed than men are.


But, you're not, and all the data states that "sexism" is NOT what's holding society back.


So, that which already exists, and has existed for decades.


Word of advice, don't become a Freetard. Even the founder of the ideal, Richard Stallman, is a hack who's never installed the software he's an advocate for. Also, by "greener", do you mean finally ignoring the film industry's propaganda for the bullshit it is?


HOW? Be specific.


No fucking shit. Over the course of the past four months of 2021 alone, you've had millionaires sprouting up out of every woodwork due to investing in jokes like GameStop and Dogecoin. If that doesn't signal to everyone that the repeated paradigm about how "education and hard effort is the 'key' to becoming successful and wealthy" is an outright fucking myth, I don't know what does. And, the sad part about it is that people have been teaching how it is a farce for decades.


If you know that they're extremists, and know that they're causing more harm than good, then stop supporting them and get them out of there.

________________