Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Oh, and next time you burn some strawmen,

Somehow it doesn't shock me that you don't know what a strawman is.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/patriarchy

Oh god, you can read a dictionary.

A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it:

Oh wait, you can't. The above is just a less wordy version of this;

a society where the majority of its leaders are Men and the society is shaped in such a way that Men enjoy a number of privileges that are disproportionate to the privileges owned by women.

Once again, I find most people don't know how to use a dictionary, which is sad because they're usually the people who really need to start understanding what words mean and how meaning works

...and you go ad hominem, the circle is complete!

...and we're supposed to take your word for it being valid in this case?

So you don't know what Anthropology is either then?

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and you go ad hominem, the circle is complete!

You keep throwing out words and showing you don't know what they mean or how words acquire and demonstrate meaning. That's not ad hominem its demonstrated from your posts You've also used ad hominem incorrectly, as attacking your poor use of a dictionary isn't the same thing as attacking you the person.

You're the one who goes into threads and accuses people of using biased definitions and then misses that those definitions are in dictionaries (most dictionaries being written by Descriptive Linguists, this isn't really shocking).

Shall we take a step back? My apologies Sigvatr, I was using patriarchy as a government where the majority of power was held by males and females were largely excluded from it.

I classed the USA as that due to our lack of any female presidents, and women holding only 20% of the seats in Congress. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/cong.pdf

What is the correct nomenclature for a government with this sort of gender bias?

 Sigvatr wrote:

I prefer using unbiased, standard English terms in order to establish a well-rounded discussion and use terms that do not benefit either side.

Seriously, the definition in question isn't exactly new, it's existed for decades at this point.

You've done absolutely nothing to back up why you're dismissing the definition other than declare it "biased"*, and expect us to take your word for it.

*How can a definition be "biased" anyway? The decisions leading you to use a certain definition can certainly be biased, but the definition itself is just an explanation of what you mean with a certain word, phrase, or expression, used in order to make sure that you're consistent with yourself.

Wow, I thought my ideas of philosophy were crazy. This chick takes the cake on that. Lets annihilate the male species, ignoring the fact that woman are human beings as well and have just the equal amount of reason to start wars and genocide. My god people need to read their philosophy books better.

 LordofHats wrote:


You keep throwing out words and showing you don't know what they mean or how words acquire and demonstrate meaning. That's not ad hominem its demonstrated from your posts You've also used ad hominem incorrectly, as attacking your poor use of a dictionary isn't the same thing as attacking you the person..

So basically, you're angry about someone whose native language isn't English still seems to be significantally more proficient at understanding and correctly applying its terms?

I guess I just realized why you're so angry then - apologies for hurting your feelings, not intended

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Shall we take a step back? My apologies Sigvatr, I was using patriarchy as a government where the majority of power was held by males and females were largely excluded from it.

No offense taken by you, I saw where you were coming from. Technically, it isn't a patriarchy but you used the term to describe it as being as a patriarchy - which is fine


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


*How can a definition be "biased" anyway?

A definition becomes "biased" when it's used to fit into any party's agenda. Patriarchy, by the actual definition, is the enforced rule of men where all power comes from men and women are explicitely excluded. That's a patriarchy. Like a king ruling over his kingdom or women denied voting rights. This, fortunately, is a thing of the past in modern states, yet it still is a problem in many countries all over the world, e.g. most middle-east countries.

That's the definition of a patriarchy.

Now, the term isn't used in the normal way from time to time. People, as with many other words, use them in a a slightly different meaning to make it fit more to their own ideas of it. This can be fine, as stated above, if you want to describe anything etc. If using it to make a point, however, it's misleading.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Now, the term isn't used in the normal way from time to time. People, as with many other words, use them in a a slightly different meaning to make it fit more to their own ideas of it. This can be fine, as stated above, if you want to describe anything etc. If using it to make a point, however, it's misleading.

Which no one was doing in this thread. You just objected to the use of the word patriarchy because... something. The definition of patriarchy being used has been in use for longer than I've been alive, it's certainly used widely enough to have entered common parlance. We know you don't like that, but that's how it is.

Okay so I bet this lady would be apart of the wicker man world. (Where a man is sacrificed every year for crops, and men only work, mate, sleep, and thats it and where the women rule in a tribal like community.)

I still think from what is being read, people think it is sexist, but isn't sexist to put down either gender?

Women and Men have capabilities to kill and murder.

It is not just unique to men. There are so women who become serial killers, some who lead terrorist organizations. Some who pulled the strings of kings to cause wars. It happens and no human is immune to the flaws inherit in humans.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So basically, you're angry about someone whose native language isn't English still seems to be significantally more proficient at understanding and correctly applying its terms?

Angry? Dude, I find you hilarious Half the reason I reply is to see what nonsense you'll trot out next. Like this;

A definition becomes "biased" when it's used to fit into any party's agenda. Patriarchy, by the actual definition, is the enforced rule of men where all power comes from men and women are explicitely excluded. That's a patriarchy. Like a king ruling over his kingdom or women denied voting rights.

You linked a web page defining patriarchy in three ways. One of those ways is one defining how Feminists typically use the word. And you're still here trying to claim that there's only one actual definition. If you'd never bothered to crack open a dictionary, or found one that only listed one definition for the word it might be understandable, but you linked a page with three!

The level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen you level over the past few threads where I've seen you in, and with such utter transparency, is keeping me chipper

And then this;

If using it to make a point, however, it's misleading.

Again; you call for words to have only one technical/accurate/actual/unbiased meaning, despite it being demonstrated by you yourself that they have more than one, and then accuse anyone of using those other definitions of 'misleading' people.

I got nothing to do this early in the morning, and you're filling it with laughter! I thank you sir

 LordofHats wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
So basically, you're angry about someone whose native language isn't English still seems to be significantally more proficient at understanding and correctly applying its terms?

Angry? Dude, I find you hilarious Half the reason I reply is to see what nonsense you'll trot out next.

Make that two, I have been working this morning and now I'm cooking at the same time. Ze forum game, a game for ze whole family.

Still, it'd be more entertaining if you'd read my posts, in detail, as you keep jumping to false conclusions based on false assumptions, as has been pointed out already a few posts above. Or even pages right now.

So by that statement of yours, you state that women are mostly excluded from our society nowadays?

My point isn't that the definition itself is wrong, it's the use. The definition is exactly as I pointed out above. The problem is that a lot of people misuse the term by applying it to a situation that simply isn't fit.

The level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen you level over the past few threads where I've seen you in, and with such utter transparency, is keeping me chipper

That actually is a quite fitting definition for your posts, I'll accept that!

 Sigvatr wrote:
...as you keep jumping to false conclusions based on false assumptions...

So by that statement of yours, you state that women are mostly excluded from our society nowadays?

I'd make a joke about Patch Adams here, but it's probably too soon

I never claimed that women are mostly excluded from society (EDIT: most feminists don't claim this either btw), but I do love how you accuse me of false conclusions based on false assumptions while your posts pretty much run off them. I've commented only on things you've said, namely your butchering of meaning to serve your agenda of dismissing the concept of patriarchy as used by feminists, a definition listed in a dictionary you linked (something you have yet to even address I might add).

But please be my guest. Keep on trying. Never change Sig, never change

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....

In what world is a global minimum wage technically achievable? Setting aside the enforcement problem, how do you set a global minimum wage such that it is significant without overburdening any given economy?

I think you missed the but...

You could have a very healthy minimum wage planetwide out of the redistributed incomes of the top 0.1% of earners, and probably just from a portion of that.
The problem lies in getting oil barons hedge fund managers and financier cartels to share their fortune with ordinary Africans.

I don't know who first wrote this quote but its telling.
"If all the rich people pooled their money, there wouldn't be enough to go around."
A global socialist revolution is possible, and honest global socialist revolution that parses out monies evenly is not, but only because there are humans in the process, not because there isn't enough global resources to properly support the current global population at a 'reasonable' level for quality of life.

In any event the reason for the comments was that there is a girth of difference between pie in the sky idealism and pie in the sky brutal totalitarianism. Your student ,bless her, was naive enough to believe in the former, the Femitheist is twisted enough to believe in the latter. I am OK with fantasy, and so are you if you are part of a fantasy gaming community, but some fantasy dreams can become proposals and at that point the proposals are judgeable, not on their practical merit, ias they are social fantasies, but on their moral merit. You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.

 Orlanth wrote:

The problem lies in getting oil barons hedge fund managers and financier cartels to share their fortune with ordinary Africans.

So it isn't technically achievable.

 Orlanth wrote:

You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.

I merely see naivete in both cases, bearing in mind that a global minimum wage must be enforced.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

The problem lies in getting oil barons hedge fund managers and financier cartels to share their fortune with ordinary Africans.

So it isn't technically achievable.

it is technically achievable. If the revolutionaries put the hedge fund managers in a camp and force issues.
Its a matter of practicality.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.

I merely see naivete in both cases, bearing in mind that a global minimum wage must be enforced.

Not disagreeing with that, and you are labouring under the misunderstanding that i was, which is strange because if you quoted properly you will see the true issue.
Both are naive, but one is positive naive wishful thinking and can be ignored, the other is heavily negative and could be an indicator of deeper problems.

 Orlanth wrote:

it is technically achievable. If the revolutionaries put the hedge fund managers in a camp and force issues.
Its a matter of practicality.

Are we really going to get into a techne v. episteme debate?

It is not "technically achievable" as the facts which pertain to human behavior circumvent the possibility.

 Orlanth wrote:

Not disagreeing with that, and you are labouring under the misunderstanding that i was...

You did say that they weren't comparable.

 Orlanth wrote:

Both are naive, but one is positive naive wishful thinking and can be ignored, the other is heavily negative and could be an indicator of deeper problems.

And yet they are still comparable according to the standard of naivete, the standard I used.

 Orlanth wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

In fairness a global minimum wage would definitely be a good idea, a good thing, and is technically achievable, but.....

In what world is a global minimum wage technically achievable? Setting aside the enforcement problem, how do you set a global minimum wage such that it is significant without overburdening any given economy?

I think you missed the but...

You could have a very healthy minimum wage planetwide out of the redistributed incomes of the top 0.1% of earners, and probably just from a portion of that.
The problem lies in getting oil barons hedge fund managers and financier cartels to share their fortune with ordinary Africans.

I don't know who first wrote this quote but its telling.
"If all the rich people pooled their money, there wouldn't be enough to go around."
A global socialist revolution is possible, and honest global socialist revolution that parses out monies evenly is not, but only because there are humans in the process, not because there isn't enough global resources to properly support the current global population at a 'reasonable' level for quality of life.

In any event the reason for the comments was that there is a girth of difference between pie in the sky idealism and pie in the sky brutal totalitarianism. Your student ,bless her, was naive enough to believe in the former, the Femitheist is twisted enough to believe in the latter. I am OK with fantasy, and so are you if you are part of a fantasy gaming community, but some fantasy dreams can become proposals and at that point the proposals are judgeable, not on their practical merit, ias they are social fantasies, but on their moral merit. You student sounds like a nice well meaning person who is too innocent for the world, at least on one level. The Femitheist is a nutjob with a vicious hate agenda and needs monitoring by psychiatric professionals in case she does something crazy.

We tried this once, in Russia. Didn't end too well.

Also, I wonder what North Koreans have to say about Socialism...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


<snip quotes>

We tried this once, in Russia. Didn't end too well.

Also, I wonder what North Koreans have to say about Socialism...

It didnt work out well, but few systems do. It did actually happen though.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

it is technically achievable. If the revolutionaries put the hedge fund managers in a camp and force issues.
Its a matter of practicality.

Are we really going to get into a techne v. episteme debate?

Yes

You failed to understand that there is a sliding scale between impossible, technically possible and practically possible. You have split and merged technically possible into the two ends by denying implausible technical possibilities. This is actually naive of you and ignores vital lessons of history.
For example when something is technically possible, because it technically can be done, but is perceived so impractical or unlikely it is lumped in as impossible rather than possible, that is when people who find a way to make the technically possible practical reap a dividend because others assume it cannot be done. People like Mohamadas Ghandi and Heinz Guderian.

 dogma wrote:

It is not "technically achievable" as the facts which pertain to human behavior circumvent the possibility.

Wrong.
Taking your logic the US has no national taxation, no national health care and no national rule of law , and neither does any other country; because you will always find someone who doesn't pay their taxes, doesn't get health care or breaks the law and gets away with it.
The monkey in the system doesn't matter.
100% success is not the pass mark for civic achievement, legislation is.

Once you understand this then youn can ask yoursalf can a body such as the UN pass a global law calling for a global minimum wage? Yes, it can if the General assembly agrees and the Security council doesnt veto. You could also invisage scenarios where that may play out.

The monkey in the system doesn't matter.
A global government is possible, and some believe one is indeed likely, or may already be here in terms of the UN.
A global government may propose a global minimum wage.
In fact one could have that now, we have a 'global abolition of slavery' via the UN declaration 1948, there are still slaves though, just fewer has before and more concealed. We could have a decreed in the UN 'global minimum wage' and wag fingers at regimes that don't keep to it, the system wont be perfect, but it could be there it might even raise some from poverty..
Its naive to say the system would fully work, which is what your student appears to imply by your commentary; its not so naive to say the system is proposable, or even 'achievable' on one level no matter how flawed.

You could also look at it this way, it would be immensely popular, a demagogue could see the virtue in backing the billions of poor over the millions of rich. Could a global minimum wage be proposed for selfish and corrupt ends, most definitely. It would be a shrewd route to more power under a global government or intra-governmental system.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Not disagreeing with that, and you are labouring under the misunderstanding that i was...

You did say that they weren't comparable.

They were not morally comperable, under the context of your orginal comments, which were to mock the two 'policies' side by side, which is a moral comparison. The Femitheist is an object or ridicule, I wouldnt laugh at people who propose a global million wage, they may be doing so for sound humanitarian reasons.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Both are naive, but one is positive naive wishful thinking and can be ignored, the other is heavily negative and could be an indicator of deeper problems.

And yet they are still comparable according to the standard of naivete, the standard I used.

You need to see the difference between harmless naiveity (sp) and dangerously naive. You were mocking your student as 'comedy gold' which is ok at one level, but lumping her in the same category as the Femitheist, which is not.
From your tone and the fact that you considered her papers 'comedy' implies she didn't want to propose a global minimum wage by mass ritual castration or the equivalent.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I feel sorry for her kid if she actually has one.

if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.

Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.


I am going to post this, from the FAQ on her website.

Q: “Are you a ‘Feminist’?”
A: No. I am not a “Radical Feminist,” or even a “Feminist” of any kind, despite what many "MRAs" claim. Femitheism is unique to my followers and I, and I do not associate it with Feminism because the desired outcomes are drastically and absolutely different in almost every way. And, although I do believe in some obviously tangible “Patriarchal Constructs,” I do not support or even care much about “Patriarchy Theory,” and I do not care much about defending concepts like “Rape Culture,” and so forth. I have my own phrases and concepts. I do argue on behalf of those Feminist concepts sometimes, but mostly out of boredom; I have no desire to prove their legitimacy beyond that. And, just for future reference, anyone who claims that I am a Feminist, or that my writings are Feminist-related, or that my group is a Feminist group, or that my followers are Feminists, is wrong. I am not a Feminist, and neither are they. We are Fethez who follow Femitheism. We, and our ideological set, are entirely dissociated from Feminism/Feminists. This fact has been made clear across all of my platforms for nearly two years now, and most of the MRAs still haven’t quite figured it out yet (once again, likely due to shortcomings in reading comprehension). If anyone claims or states that I am a Feminist, or that we are Feminists/Feminism-related, they are either disingenuous, or simply a liar. Period.

Emphasis mine.
So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I feel sorry for her kid if she actually has one.

if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.

Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.

Irony is from interviews of Westboro kids they can grow up well rounded.
Fed complete BS from their parents but aware that there is a differing opinion just outside their door.
They grow up politically aware and start questioning morality.
The it goes one of two ways, either they get brainwashed, or they leave/get kicked out of home.
Those that leave often get interviewed because of who their parents are and in cases I have seen they are bright and morally aware citizens and come across that was in interviews.

I can't credit WBC for any of this, its more the presence of counterprotest and the frequency of coverage. But it is a hothouse environment, and that is effective for raising high achiever children.
Also no matter what we think of the WBC they are high achievers, they are under mental siege from the entire US media and everyone hates them, but are still holding out.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I feel sorry for her kid if she actually has one.

if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.

Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.

Irony is from interviews of Westboro kids they can grow up well rounded.
Fed complete BS from their parents but aware that there is a differing opinion just outside their door.
They grow up politically aware and start questioning morality.
The it goes one of two ways, either they get brainwashed, or they leave/get kicked out of home.
Those that leave often get interviewed because of who their parents are and in cases I have seen they are bright and morally aware citizens and come across that was in interviews.

I can't credit WBC for any of this, its more the presence of counterprotest and the frequency of coverage. But it is a hothouse environment, and that is effective for raising high achiever children.
Also no matter what we think of the WBC they are high achievers, they are under mental siege from the entire US media and everyone hates them, but are still holding out.

A rock would hold out just well, and I wouldn't attribute any kind of high achievement to it for the feat. And it wouldn't hurt people as much from its spot on the ground. Honestly, I'd prefer the rock.

The lunatic has followers? God help us...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The lunatic has followers?

Followers? Is that another name for imaginary friends here, or actual people?

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and we're supposed to take your word for it being valid in this case?

Anyway, long story short:

I prefer using unbiased, standard English terms in order to establish a well-rounded discussion and use terms that do not benefit either side.

You prefer using biased terms that fit your own agenda. Which is fine, for yourself, but don't expect others, including me, to meet you at eye level if going in such discussions when even your use of basic terms already shows a strong bias.

Hey I can't build up a good head of fake rage steam here with you people arguing about...definitions.

Queried the wife and daughter on this subject. Both thought it reaked of Nazi. Neither were happy when I said my first thought was "hah, ten to one, pfft we can still take you." Later, after saying that again, they ganged up on me and beat me with well accented draperies until I was rescued by the canines and hidden in a kennel.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?

Even if she had called herself one it would not have mattered. I can call myself president, but that does not mean I am one either.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I feel sorry for her kid if she actually has one.

if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.

Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.


I am going to post this, from the FAQ on her website.

Q: “Are you a ‘Feminist’?”
A: No. I am not a “Radical Feminist,” or even a “Feminist” of any kind, despite what many "MRAs" claim. Femitheism is unique to my followers and I, and I do not associate it with Feminism because the desired outcomes are drastically and absolutely different in almost every way. And, although I do believe in some obviously tangible “Patriarchal Constructs,” I do not support or even care much about “Patriarchy Theory,” and I do not care much about defending concepts like “Rape Culture,” and so forth. I have my own phrases and concepts. I do argue on behalf of those Feminist concepts sometimes, but mostly out of boredom; I have no desire to prove their legitimacy beyond that. And, just for future reference, anyone who claims that I am a Feminist, or that my writings are Feminist-related, or that my group is a Feminist group, or that my followers are Feminists, is wrong. I am not a Feminist, and neither are they. We are Fethez who follow Femitheism. We, and our ideological set, are entirely dissociated from Feminism/Feminists. This fact has been made clear across all of my platforms for nearly two years now, and most of the MRAs still haven’t quite figured it out yet (once again, likely due to shortcomings in reading comprehension). If anyone claims or states that I am a Feminist, or that we are Feminists/Feminism-related, they are either disingenuous, or simply a liar. Period.

Emphasis mine.
So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?

Well thats good, means the feminists don't have to deal with her now.

She is now what ever the hell a Femithesit is. I just looked it up and it is really popular with college girls and high school girls O.o

Q: “What does ‘Femitheist’ mean?”
A: The title that I use, “Femitheist,” is a loose merger of the words “Female” and “Theist.” The reason that there is an “i” in the word (aside from the addition of it being aesthetically and phonetically pleasing to me), is that I didn’t want the title to be confused with anything “Atheism” related, although I am (conventionally) an Agnostic-Atheist. The full title is “The Femitheist Divine,” and it has since been presented in a variety of ways, such as “Femitheist,” “Femitheist Divine,” “The Divine Femitheist,” “The Femitheist,” “FD,” and “Femi.” The name is a play-on-words, and relates to a piece that I wrote entitled “God as the Woman,” which will be re-posted again later (it is not currently available anywhere). The word is original to me and my online presence. And, yes, I am aware that it is not etymologically correct, but it is an invented sobriquet which has taken on its own meaning, and nothing more.

Q: “Do you hate men?”
A: No. I abhor and oppose only offenders and perpetrators, female and male, and desire to protect and elevate all victims and non-offenders, regardless of sex.

Huh. Okay.

Q: “If you don’t hate men, why do you so often focus on the crimes and violence of men?”
A: Men commit the overwhelming majority of all violence and crime (70-80%+ statistically/annually, in relation to violent crimes, for instance), and I prefer to observe reality as it is. I do not ignore or apologize for female offenders and perpetrators, but statistically, modernly and historically, men are, and have always been, the overwhelming majority when it comes to committing acts of violence (they are also the majority of victims, as most crimes are male-on-male or male-on-female). The aforementioned issues are not my fault (or how I wish for things to be, which is why I desire a dramatic paradigm alteration/reformation); however, these conditions are simply our actuality in this system, and I prefer to see all things as they truly are

Which is also false from a biased stand point. There are many areas of the world where it is more than equal in terms of crime and violence.

Q: “Do you advocate ‘International Castration Day’?”
A: No. I was never serious about ICD. I explained this more thoroughly in a recent post here. It has been rescinded/retracted for over a year (nearing two). I grew weary of discussions of it in any context. People are free to continue mentioning it if they'd like, but I will not be. This answer was condensed because a few individuals felt that the original was too prolix and discursive. Rest assured, none of my true preferences and/or solutions involve castration, harming anyone, or killing anyone (yes, this need be stated). My genuine devices/ideas and/or desired outcomes are far more sophisticated, intricate and benevolent/benign.

Alrighty. Thats genuinely a good argument. Except a few bits and pieces here and there that make me raise my eyebrow pretty bloody high.

Q: “Do you still advocate reducing the male population to roughly 1-10%?”
A: Yes. This will be thoroughly explained in my book (mentioned above), and no, it has nothing to do with “hating men.” It is for the betterment of the human species, and the instruments of its arrival include genetic engineering, elements of trans-humanism, and various other things that I will not expound here (due to the information being intended for my future/upcoming projects). None of it has anything to do with hatred of men; it is all conceptualized to improve the overall well-being of humanity (the aims are controlled and enhanced evolution and refinement of the human condition). Once more men witness and understand what I am proposing with this project, it is highly likely that many of them will be far less opposed; they will, perhaps, even be enthusiastic about my mission, as my plans will be of great benefit to them (more so than women, in a way). All of my currently supported methods are benign, and yes, the reduction is absolutely possible, and its sustainment (as I will prove) is completely (scientifically) feasible — it will work.

Why not just decrease the overall population? I know that sounds horrible and indiscriminately killing people is not really on everyones high list, but we are talking theoretical here. Killing for the sakes of wrongs against humanity is as good as murdering a puppy the first day you got it for pooping on the carpet. What about those that we send to jail... Are rehabilitated instead of I don't know... Released without rehabilitation? That would solve 68% of all crimes in the US. As we would not have as many repeating criminals.

Most people who act in criminal behavior way are usually forced into that position I.E. Gang Bangers, Thiefs, etc. Mostly due to their economic status. They are angry that they are in this situation and turn to crime, because it is 'easier' than actually doing the hard work to complete it.

I feel like She is making great agruments but is not looking at the root source, not gender based. Which makes her argument inherently sexist in someway. It may not be her intent but that is what she comes off as.

Q: “Do you believe that testosterone causes aggression or violent behavior?”
A: No (or at least not alone). Many studies have shown that higher levels of testosterone do not necessarily lead to more aggressive behaviors. There is still much research that needs to be done in this area before any absolute conclusions can be drawn, but for the time being, my answer is no.

Agreed.


So far I can see her thoughts and values are just a little bit misguided, they are boarding that egalitarian and feminist ideals to some degree. But here entire outlook is completely Utilitarian. (If these phrases confuse you, I will put some links into the words)

From her thinking I can infer that she is treading on a pretty slippery slope on her beliefs to eradicate 10% of the population. But from her words I can see she is not talking the theoretical here, but in actuality this is what she wants us to do.

There are many things that can be done differently than what she suggests. Such as being blinded by her own beliefs. And keeping a bit more of an open mind.

 motyak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I feel sorry for her kid if she actually has one.

if male...his mother despises him.
If female...she'll be raised to despise 50% of the human race.

Still better than being in the Westboro Baptist Church. At least the kid will only be in contact of one “ideologically impaired” parent, not a whole cult-like family.

Irony is from interviews of Westboro kids they can grow up well rounded.
Fed complete BS from their parents but aware that there is a differing opinion just outside their door.
They grow up politically aware and start questioning morality.
The it goes one of two ways, either they get brainwashed, or they leave/get kicked out of home.
Those that leave often get interviewed because of who their parents are and in cases I have seen they are bright and morally aware citizens and come across that was in interviews.

I can't credit WBC for any of this, its more the presence of counterprotest and the frequency of coverage. But it is a hothouse environment, and that is effective for raising high achiever children.
Also no matter what we think of the WBC they are high achievers, they are under mental siege from the entire US media and everyone hates them, but are still holding out.

A rock would hold out just well, and I wouldn't attribute any kind of high achievement to it for the feat. And it wouldn't hurt people as much from its spot on the ground. Honestly, I'd prefer the rock.

A satisfying sentiment but a poor assessment. A rock has no feelings, or sense of moral compass. These people do, on some level, and have no support and are under constant moral attack for reasons they can only blame themselves for.
They live in a country of 300+ million people and just about every one of them hates them, they are barred from entry to most civilised countries, riduculed in the press, unwanted in their community and their religious doctrines are torn to shreds by people of the same religion, many of whom can expound on theology better than they can.
Unlike a rock the WBC is losing members to mental and moral pressure, but some remain despite the stresses of being a part of WBC. I am trying to figure out what makes them tick, 'they are brainwashed' doesnt cut it. because the surrounding counter-media is all prevailing and they cant close out its influence. Brainwashing normally requires some detachment to be sustainable which WBC lack due to their high profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I am going to post this, from the FAQ on her website.

Q: “Are you a ‘Feminist’?”
A: No. I am not a “Radical Feminist,” or even a “Feminist” of any kind, despite what many "MRAs" claim. Femitheism is unique to my followers and I, and I do not associate it with Feminism because the desired outcomes are drastically and absolutely different in almost every way. And, although I do believe in some obviously tangible “Patriarchal Constructs,” I do not support or even care much about “Patriarchy Theory,” and I do not care much about defending concepts like “Rape Culture,” and so forth. I have my own phrases and concepts. I do argue on behalf of those Feminist concepts sometimes, but mostly out of boredom; I have no desire to prove their legitimacy beyond that. And, just for future reference, anyone who claims that I am a Feminist, or that my writings are Feminist-related, or that my group is a Feminist group, or that my followers are Feminists, is wrong. I am not a Feminist, and neither are they. We are Fethez who follow Femitheism. We, and our ideological set, are entirely dissociated from Feminism/Feminists. This fact has been made clear across all of my platforms for nearly two years now, and most of the MRAs still haven’t quite figured it out yet (once again, likely due to shortcomings in reading comprehension). If anyone claims or states that I am a Feminist, or that we are Feminists/Feminism-related, they are either disingenuous, or simply a liar. Period.

Emphasis mine.
So basically, 90% of this thread is invalid now. Who would have thought ?

Do we actually know if this person is real, or just a troll?

 Hordini wrote:
Well, at least she's pretty cute, right?

I'd feth her, but it would violate rule #1: Never feth crazy.

Been there, done that. Totally wasn't worth it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Do we actually know if this person is real, or just a troll?

Does it matter?

If someone said. "round up all the Jews and place them in gas chambers.......only joking" there need be no mitigation of the condemnation.
A joker or a far right anti-semitic extremist are equally unlikely to start a new holocaust in the west, so the seriousness is irrelevant, the offence is relevant.

People have the right and reason to say that the Femitheist is a dangerous extremist and should be publically sanctioned. The think is that men don't have the political tooling or social infrastructure to call out dangerous 'sexists' as women can and do.
Men in general dont appear to have the right to say, 'I find this offensive'.