iFeminism is a scam

Started by LST, Aug 21, 2004, 11:14 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Mr Benn

I used to lurk around the iFeminist boards too.

But then I realised that it wasn't doing my blood pressure any good.

Think of it this way:

Imagine you are sitting in a car parked on a road on a steep hill. Suddenly, up the hill, the brakes fail on another parked car and it starts to roll down towards you.

What do you do?

The car is rolling down the hill, by the time it reaches your car it will have picked up enough speed that it will crash into your car with enough force to seriously damage it.

What do you do in this circumstance? You can't control the moving car. All you have control over is your car.

The answer is that you start to drive up the hill towards the car, and let it hit your car at a low speed before its picked up too much momentum.

Now this is EXACTLY the strategy that I beleive the iFeminist style feminists are employing. They can see the men's movement, or at least an anti-feminist backlash, starting to come down the road at them. They can't exactly make it disapear. but if they quickly move up and meet it half-way down the road then they can kill its momentum and stop it moving any further and doing their interests any serious damage.

What I'm saying here is that they want to keep their "Feminism" - whatever that means to them - and they don't like the idea that the lies of feminism being exposed mean that their "F word" is under threat.

So they are quickly moving a little way in our direction, just to kill our momentum.

But a little way is not enough for us.

Why should I kiss the feet of these women just because they have graciously deigned to offer me half of my rights as a Human back - on the provisio that I promise to be a good boy, and not ever threaten their interests again?

iFeminism is an ornimental garden. An artificial enclosed space that the women pretend is a true representation of the real world. It is a place where they can make-believe that their feminist conceits are really true after all. Where they can pretend things like women don't really desire a man of greater stature than themselves.

If you want the Tinkerbell of feminism to survive then clap your hands! Oh yes, say you beleive! If we all say it loud enough then it will be real!

The artifice is only maintained due to a very strict editorial policy on their discussion forum where descenting opinions are quickly edited out, stamped on hysterically; where threads are regularly frozen and moved around. And whatever is left is not nature, but an artificial, warped similacrum.

Its not a place for discussion, but a masterbatory last ditch effort to prop up a dying philosophical label that deserves to die like the foul creature that is it.

Not so much Tinkerbell, but more like Tinkerhell.
ww.CoolTools4Men.com

Galt

Yeah, what Mr. Benn said.

(Seriously - I just don't feel like writing or thinking anymore right now).

Tony Ananda

>Okay checked it out. Women still marry up. Her reply in my opinion did not refute the article. Neither did the thread. Tony: what did you think?<

Guess what Stally? I didn't even read it.   Wendy's prose sounds like a monotone to me.  No height, no depth, just a noise in the background that one doesn't even notice after awhile.  After one paragraph of Wendy my eyes glaze over and I move on to something more stimulating to the nerve endings.

A few thoughts about Wendy, Cathy and Christina:

It was a common (mis) conception that, for example, a book like Who Stole Feminism would not and could not have even been published had it been written by a man.  If a man had written it would have been ignored, minimized, disregarded and mocked.  So up until about 2000 or 2001 women were the only ones given any kind of hearing about gender issues.  Today the situation is quite different.  There is more mainstream awareness that men have some legitimate gripes too.  Now even radfems have to pay lip service to things like women who CHOOSE to drop out of the workforce for their own reasons.  It is harder for them than it once was to make their case for discrimination stick in the court of public opinion.  

Wendy, Cathy and Christina have outlived their usefulness.  Men no longer need them as mouthpieces.
When the going gets weird, the wierd turn pro.

Stallywood

Quote from: "Tony Ananda"
>Okay checked it out. Women still marry up. Her reply in my opinion did not refute the article. Neither did the thread. Tony: what did you think?<

Guess what Stally? I didn't even read it.   Wendy's prose sounds like a monotone to me.  No height, no depth, just a noise in the background that one doesn't even notice after awhile.  After one paragraph of Wendy my eyes glaze over and I move on to something more stimulating to the nerve endings.

A few thoughts about Wendy, Cathy and Christina:

It was a common (mis) conception that, for example, a book like Who Stole Feminism would not and could not have even been published had it been written by a man.  If a man had written it would have been ignored, minimized, disregarded and mocked.  So up until about 2000 or 2001 women were the only ones given any kind of hearing about gender issues.  Today the situation is quite different.  There is more mainstream awareness that men have some legitimate gripes too.  Now even radfems have to pay lip service to things like women who CHOOSE to drop out of the workforce for their own reasons.  It is harder for them than it once was to make their case for discrimination stick in the court of public opinion.  

Wendy, Cathy and Christina have outlived their usefulness.  Men no longer need them as mouthpieces.




Not a problem Tony, if I seemed snide, its my fault. I pretty much think we are on the same page.
Stally
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

Stallywood

Quote from: "Mr Benn"
I used to lurk around the iFeminist boards too.

But then I realised that it wasn't doing my blood pressure any good.

Think of it this way:

Imagine you are sitting in a car parked on a road on a steep hill. Suddenly, up the hill, the brakes fail on another parked car and it starts to roll down towards you.

What do you do?

The car is rolling down the hill, by the time it reaches your car it will have picked up enough speed that it will crash into your car with enough force to seriously damage it.

What do you do in this circumstance? You can't control the moving car. All you have control over is your car.

The answer is that you start to drive up the hill towards the car, and let it hit your car at a low speed before its picked up too much momentum.

Now this is EXACTLY the strategy that I beleive the iFeminist style feminists are employing. They can see the men's movement, or at least an anti-feminist backlash, starting to come down the road at them. They can't exactly make it disapear. but if they quickly move up and meet it half-way down the road then they can kill its momentum and stop it moving any further and doing their interests any serious damage.

What I'm saying here is that they want to keep their "Feminism" - whatever that means to them - and they don't like the idea that the lies of feminism being exposed mean that their "F word" is under threat.

So they are quickly moving a little way in our direction, just to kill our momentum.

But a little way is not enough for us.

Why should I kiss the feet of these women just because they have graciously deigned to offer me half of my rights as a Human back - on the provisio that I promise to be a good boy, and not ever threaten their interests again?

iFeminism is an ornimental garden. An artificial enclosed space that the women pretend is a true representation of the real world. It is a place where they can make-believe that their feminist conceits are really true after all. Where they can pretend things like women don't really desire a man of greater stature than themselves.

If you want the Tinkerbell of feminism to survive then clap your hands! Oh yes, say you beleive! If we all say it loud enough then it will be real!

The artifice is only maintained due to a very strict editorial policy on their discussion forum where descenting opinions are quickly edited out, stamped on hysterically; where threads are regularly frozen and moved around. And whatever is left is not nature, but an artificial, warped similacrum.

Its not a place for discussion, but a masterbatory last ditch effort to prop up a dying philosophical label that deserves to die like the foul creature that is it.

Not so much Tinkerbell, but more like Tinkerhell.



Now that is a great analogy.  :-)

Stally
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

Tony Ananda

No, no, Stally.  I didn't think you were being snide at all.  I wasn't trying to 'put you in your place' or anything like that either.  On the Internet we lose the inflections and intonations of our voices.  We become... monotones.  Yes we are on the same page.

Good analogy, Mr. Benn.
When the going gets weird, the wierd turn pro.

Thomas

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but Wendy chooses to look at only one side of an example that she gives to refute the claim that many, perhaps most, women will continue to marry up or not at all.

She states, "For one thing, general comments about evolution indicate little about the prudence or incidence of specific behaviors today. Human beings have evolved to eat as much calorie-rich fatty food as possible to store as energy. That doesn't mean it is a recommended or even a much pursued behavior in our culture. Indeed, much of our culture is organized around eschewing that evolutionary tendency."

While there is, indeed, an element of health-consciousness in our culture, there is also an epidemic of obesity.  Our situation has changed to the point where we no longer need to store as many calories as in the past by consuming large quantities of fatty foods.  Nevertheless, overeating such foods is "pursued behavior in our culture," and for that matter around the world, to such an extent that the World Health Organization warns about an escalating global epidemic of obesity.  (See this page: http://www.who.int/nut/obs.htm.)

It may not be in the best interests of women or society for women, on the whole, to continue to insist on marrying up, but the example she gives of fatty foods, combined with repeated studies and warnings by the WHO, suggest that a great many will continue to do so, if they have in fact evolved to do so.

To imply that things will be fine, when women are vastly more educated than men, to imply that women will marry and take good care of their ignorant husbands, who took up the hammer and saw after dropping out of high school, is to cavalierly minimize a growing crisis that men face.
We Are Self-Exterminating Through The Collapse Of Fertility Rates.
The Death of Birth.
Fertility Rates Magazine.

Stallywood

I think I got the gist of what you are referring to when I read Wendy's thread. I am just not as good as you are at putting it into words.  Good analysis.
Stally
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

Róss

Here is an interesting summary of some recent postings to the iFeminist board:

http://www.annieeblackheart.com/index.php?showtopic=499&st=0&#entry4506

I know that MRAs hang on Wendy because a woman seems to actually see men's points of view, sometimes, but her behavior on her message boards speaks volumes.

She sometimes taunts the men and then deletes her own posts.  She allows the ego-driven Kirsten her nonsense and insults against men.  She states something and asks for any counterpoints that could possibly exist and then strong-arms the people, deletes their posts and ultimately bans them if they really politely answer with something she doesn't like.  She falls back on "we're in our living room here, so just leave if you don't follow our rules" but out of the other side of her mouth she proclaims freedom of posting.  She can be an extremely nasty person to anyone who disagrees with her.

I can't come to any other conclusion than the fact that she is getting money with her "siding-with-men" shtick and that's her reason for it as an otherwise very mediocre writer.  Because a few comments I have seen from her, which she conveniently deleted, lead me to believe that she aggressively hates MRAs.  Or at the very least, she wants to be the boss of them.  Not a nice person.  Join the iFeminist boards and try to say anything, very politely and with statistics, that she doesn't like and you may see what I mean.  The big problem is that the tactics are underhanded strong-arming, taunting and only then the ultimate banning by her lap-dog Brad.  She isn't obvious, and she changes posts, deletes posts and taunts for certain posts, and then deletes her own, as a form of tactics.  If you don't believe me, sign on and watch the fun.

Stallywood

Brad and Kirsten are two of the main reasons I left.
Stally
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

Titurel

Yes, we believe you.  Discussing different points of view isn't the same as taking a shit in someone else's living room, an analogy often repeated on that board.

Double Jeopardy

Speaking of the Ifem board I was just browsing there and I noticed this thread about the OffOurBacks feminazi queens trying to draw the attention of men because the root of the patriarchy threat starts with men and ends with men, according to them anyway.  A member there posted this

"
I have to say, when I read that article or the ones linked to the "Off Our Backs" posting above, it turns my stomach.

The fact that these women have the backing of the law in many instances makes me want to steer very clear of any woman in the US outside of any professional interaction.

In California, domestic violence is specifically legally defined to be a crime against women or children, not men.

Young boys raped by older women are liable for child support.

It's taken a class action lawsuit nationwide just to get the general public aware that noncustodial parents aren't afforded constitutional rights.

Given the rampant anti-male bias in this country, what man in his right mind would get married or live with a woman in this legal and social environment?

I have two daughters who depend on me. I hope their generation has more humanity and wisdom than mine.
   

I take it this guy is speaking out of his frustration of the biased laws that, as we all well know, hang men out to dry without provocation. The laws ARE shifted in favor of women no matter if they are all like that or not. It's like being bitten and watching people being bitten by sharks at a beach, are YOU going to be apprehensive about swimming there or do you suppose you should just buck up, do the PC correct thing and take each shark as an individual and hope it isn't going to get hungry? Here is the response he got from a woman (Kirsten) who has quite a posting history there.

Can you please wear a sign that says something like,

"Stay away from me if you are female- I am unable to differentiate between individuals."

or whatever sentiment would be appropriate so that we women know not to bother trying to get to know you either?

Thanks.



Now, before anyone gets their haunches up, this isn't about that site in particular but about the response. This is the shit men are up against everyday, you are not allowed to be afraid, apprehensive or speak out about it even. This is the same shiftless back you into a corner rhetorical silver tongued tactics that got men backed into the corner we are in today. This is supposed to be coming from someone who is offering an olive branch to men, to equal the playing field for both genders? BULL. it's backhanded feminist politics and nothing more.

Maybe he should wear a sign as she said and all the women can wear one that says, "I've thought about it, and I do or do not want accountability for my actions so think about this before marrying me".

I mean Jesus H. Criminey on a runaway pogo-sitck, doesn't this crap EVER end? :roll:

Stallywood

The thing is, that not only can she post s#$t like that. But if the initial poster fights back he will be crapped on by Brad and others on the board. This is why I quit.  And no, it never ends on that site. Especially when she will be the first to cry about being a staunch supporter of men and everyone will come to her rescue. (If the poster decides to defend himself)
Stally
Gentleman is a man who consciously serves women. I prefer the golden rule.

Behind every great man, is a
parasite.

Women who say men won't commit, usually aren't worth committing to.

hurkle

Glad I found this forum. I initially found the ifeminists site, but found that there was less support for men's rights than I initially thought.  

Double Jeapardy hits the nail on the head with his example. Yet it wasn't until I read this thread that I realized why I had just left their forum.

As far as the enemy of my enemy idea goes, that may make them an ally, but not necessarily my friend at all.
: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

typhonblue

Quote

Can you please wear a sign that says something like,

"Stay away from me if you are female- I am unable to differentiate between individuals."

or whatever sentiment would be appropriate so that we women know not to bother trying to get to know you either?

Thanks.



How come women have to be treated on a case by case basis yet men can be tarred as a group?

I mean, really! A lot of laws have come about because "men are the only ones who are agressive" (ie. DV laws), "men are the only ones who rape", "men don't have emotions therefore they can't be raped"... Plus all the generalizations about men that inform social behavior, the list goes on.

Go Up