|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 15, 2014 12:35:18 GMT 5
Two different people wrote these.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Jul 15, 2014 13:06:40 GMT 5
To conclude: Feminists hate men. They hate sex. They hate stay at home moms. They hate children. They hate conservatives. They hate tradition. They hate religion. They hate gender roles. They hate anti-abortionists. They even hate video games.
You'd have to be a pretty miserable human being to live in so much hate.
What do they actually like?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 15, 2014 15:48:58 GMT 5
Two different people wrote these. I know, that's why I asked which one you were referring to. VodmeisterYou forgot Hip-Hop! |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 15, 2014 20:50:37 GMT 5
To conclude: Feminists hate men. They hate sex. They hate stay at home moms. They hate children. They hate conservatives. They hate tradition. They hate religion. They hate gender roles. They hate anti-abortionists. They even hate video games. You'd have to be a pretty miserable human being to live in so much hate. What do they actually like? I think that women like this need to get laid. Some of them are just a lost cause and should just be shot in the head or put in mental asylums. |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Jul 17, 2014 14:58:28 GMT 5
You know, I question women who hate sex. It's a natural want that humans desire. Males do have a stronger sexual drive than females and females generally have more control over it, but it's still there. I feel like one would have to be mentally or psychologically ill. I don't buy when feminists say they hate sex. A good majority of them do not have boyfriends and are virgins. In my previous comment, I said that a lot of them should just get laid. I'm not entirely kidding! A lot of anger can sometimes just be sexual tensions building up. They feel insecure and know that not many men would want them, so they feel that if they can't have it with someone, then no one should. The others that actually do hate sex are probably people who for whatever reason, lack the instinctive want to mate.
A lot of feminists really need to work on self improvement rather than blame men for their issues. A lot of them are females that get caught up in groups because they're followers and easy to control. They likely have a lot of issues and see feminism as some kind of power. Very similar to poor white people that join the KKK.
But this is my big reason for hating feminism. It only seems to focus on the so called issues of women. They claim to want equality for both genders, but they focus only on one. When you listen to the shit that they say, it really seems like female privilege rather than equality. It demonizes males and puts women on a pedestal. This is not equality. Women today have many advantages. Heck women can very easily change the culture and how they are viewed within just a few years!
If these people really want equality and for both genders to be treated fairly, then become a humanitarian.
Also, I just don't understand why feminists can't understand that men and women simply think and run differently. Our brains are literally wired differently. Some of the stuff they say men do that is sexist is simply part of our evolution. There are feminists who don't like the idea of Alpha males. That is engrained in our nature. Men are actually hardwired to become Alpha males and mate with many females. It's suppressed because we're civilized and have morals that suppress that nature. That's actually one of the reasons why males cheat on their spouses or girlfriends, even if the relationship is going quite well. I'm sure many of you have thought of the idea of being with many women and getting full access to all of them whenever you wanted.
Overall, feminists don't understand male nature or even their own nature for that matter. They know little to nothing about human sexuality, human emotions, human impulses, nothing. A lot of them that do look into it will actually say "Men wrote that! It's propaganda from the patriarchy!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Aug 23, 2014 14:08:56 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Aug 23, 2014 14:10:03 GMT 5
I wouldn't mind having 9 girlfriends. In fact, 90% of the population being female is almost a fantasy for me.  Of course, I realize that the reality of men only being 10% of the population is probably much darker than that. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 23, 2014 14:41:28 GMT 5
Seriously, how can somebody be that fanatic? Doesn't an approximately equal number of both genders also fall under equality? Equality by giving men such a role is a contradiction in itself. But we all know that feminazis have a strange definition of equality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Aug 24, 2014 11:49:35 GMT 5
I'm trying to imagine being a man in a world which is 90% female.
Not sure if paradise or hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 24, 2014 13:21:48 GMT 5
Assuming you get it that far and aren't among the males that get sorted out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 25, 2014 5:34:16 GMT 5
What are they gonna do with their male children just kill them off?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 25, 2014 13:38:15 GMT 5
She said so in the text:Kill them off is an option among others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Sept 4, 2014 12:45:18 GMT 5
We are getting dangerously close to the concept of designer babies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_babyWhen things such as phenotypic traits and gender can be decided through technology rather than chance, then maybe, just maybe we won't need infanticide to suit the feminist ideological population. Although feminists find an excuse to fulfill their sickening male-killing fantasies anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2014 22:18:10 GMT 5
Someone just went full retard. Never go full retard. That can only end in one thing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinctionA 9:1 female-to-male ratio is horribly imbalanced for a large, derived vertebrate. How will future sapient species view Homo sapiens? Surely we don't want to be known as "the large-brained but utterly foolish and unintelligent ape". I can't help but think that that idiot is part of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I've got a far better solution: Reducing the rabid feminist and "rabid masculinist?" population by no less than 100%. EDIT: To get what I'm saying here: In 2012, the estimated global birth rate is about ~19.15 per 1000, or ~1.915%. Let's say that this rate is maintained until the start of our hypothetical scenario. Approximately half of an evenly-balanced sample would be women, so this would translate into ~38.3 births per 1000 women, or an average of ~3.83 children per woman. The global replacement fertility rate is an average of ~2.33 children per woman. If the male population was dropped by ~90%, assuming that the one-man-to-one-woman tradition was maintained(If the world is stupid enough to approve that plan, it would surely be too stupid to change this tradition in the face of extinction), the birth rate would plummet to 10% of it's former value, since there are now only ~10% of the former amount of "breeding pairs" and the number of women stays the same. This results in an average birth rate of an abysmal ~0.383 children/woman. The human species won't be able to replace itself as fast as the death rates pull the population numbers down. If rabid feminism was banished during the population crash, the species may be able to recover and stabilize it's population. But if the idiots kept maintaining it, the population would soon decrease to the point where the less numerous sex(males, in this hypothetical case) would die off, and the remaining population would be unable to reproduce. This is the point of no return(save for a future sapient species cloning humans for some reason). Without reproduction, the road to extinction is relatively quick and straightforward. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 5, 2014 0:25:56 GMT 5
Birth and fertility rate is not the same. Fertility rate (the 2.33 children per woman) refers to how many children an average woman gets in her life, while the birth rate (the 38.3 births per 1,000 women) refers to the births in one year. You also divided by 10, not by 1,000, the actual number would be ~0.04 years annually per woman. But the 19.15 per 1,000 people did not only include men and women, but also children and older people, who don't get children, so multiplying by two and then dividing was no good method. The actual average fertility rate in the world is around of 2.5 children per woman, a lot lower than your estimate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate(2.5/0.04 yields like 63 years which sounds realistic as an global average lifespan for women, so my calculation was probably right) This doesn't change your message, I merely wanted to make a point about the calculation. |
|
