- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,114
- Likes
- 7,762
Most feminazis are ugly looking women, whom no one would date.
Why Is India So Bad For Women?
- Thread starter Barak2
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,254
- Likes
- 3,061
I heart MRA guys I really do. They are addressing a very very serious problem and are fighting a serious war. They make a crucial false assumption. And they will never correct it .... they think that feminists(and society ) hates them.... they are wrong. Feminists and society is indifferent to them. That effectively means their logic and emotions are, however valid they may be, meaningless.
If MRAs accept this truth, their fight will be over. Because there will be nothing to fight against . lol.... Most MRAs would do well to get a few stupid laws repelled (like cohabitation=marriage) or leave the country or marry young and traditional girls so that feminists are bred out of existence. Their movement is not going to work.
Samar Rathi
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,001
- Likes
- 1,211
Women being encouraged to show off their bodies for media, and images of fake (created images) women being scantly-clad is not part of the patriarchy. Its actually a direct result of second-wave feminism.Please stop saying its about men being sexist. I'll explain.
After the first wave of feminism and women's suffrage (before and directly after the right to vote) women focused on gaining legal rights and pushing away the image of being property for the husband, but rather a companion. This was a slow process, and still perpetuated the idea of women's roles in the household and duties of motherhood before careers. They all, however, had their rights, despite being extremely prejudiced against as housekeepers and child bearers.
By the 60s second-wave feminism popped up. This is where women are trying to shake the motherhood stigma. Women began to focus on micro politics with all their voting and free speech abilities. They discussed the role of women and the roles of gender (such as lesbians, or wives, and so on and so forth). They talked about female body shame. This did away with a lot of modesty laws in the US (such as skirt length, how much skin you were allowed to show in public) for women. Bathing suits became skimpier and skimpier, and so did women's casual dress. Women displayed on television and other media were not so strictly regulated. And then there was porn. Real people, naked women, porn. This was not a bad thing. Women spoke of sex positivity and allowing women to own their autonomy and sexuality fully without prejudice and double standards.
Of course, this could not please everyone. Feminism, by the end of the second wave, had delved so deeply into micro-politics that the ideology of the movement differed from person to person, depending on how they were brought up. Feminism, empowering women, became a show of "who is more right" rather than "this is equality, this is freedom.". Differences in opinions shook the movement from within like abortion, porn, sexuality, gender-roles, and so on. Porn being the most relevant. The sexual liberation of women had had an adverse affect on our culture. Women were glorified as beautiful beings and posted naked everywhere (as seen today). Their bodies sold things easily and everyone wanted to look. It was a luxury, something the people were not able to see very often before with minor exceptions. Porn, by the 80s, was so large and so invasive, some women were starting to shun away from sexual liberation. Intra-feminism was at war. Literally. The movement was called the "Feminist Sex War" and it lead to the third wave feminism starting in the 90s. This covered quite a few topics, but to get to the point I am trying to make here:
Anti-porn feminist would say that such images made women sex objects and less than people. This causes sexism against women, different than old sexism, and violence against the everyday woman. Sex positive feminist said that porn and images of nude women was sexual liberation. That it was displaying ownership over her whole autonomy. It was her permission and her body to show if she wanted to. And it gives NO ONE permission to cause violence against her.
Ironically, should the patriarchy have ANYTHING to do with any of this, female nudity would never be displayed because women are property under patriarchy. Not people with rights and opinions and bodies.
This is why people get confused when you say, "don't tell women what to wear, tell boys to stop raping." (and i wont go into the sexism in that, today at least) and then turn around and say, "These women in video games, and media, real and fake, are being pornographic and sexually objectifying towards women. This causes violence and sexism. This is bad, and does not represent women, and should be removed or changed."
You cannot, by definition, be both sex positive and anti-porn. I know how feminists love to cling to definitions. Please stop trying to blame men for the sexism we caused ourselves. You cannot police male sexuality. Men are attracted to women. They did not force anyone to be nude or "objectify" themselves.
As for me, and how I feel about female sexual objectification: Objectification is a state of mind, caused and done only by the observer. You can personify something, or you can objectify something. But that is all you. It is the perpetrator of violence, and the anti-porn individuals that cause objectification. Not expression. I am Sex Positive, completely, and without question.
After the first wave of feminism and women's suffrage (before and directly after the right to vote) women focused on gaining legal rights and pushing away the image of being property for the husband, but rather a companion. This was a slow process, and still perpetuated the idea of women's roles in the household and duties of motherhood before careers. They all, however, had their rights, despite being extremely prejudiced against as housekeepers and child bearers.
By the 60s second-wave feminism popped up. This is where women are trying to shake the motherhood stigma. Women began to focus on micro politics with all their voting and free speech abilities. They discussed the role of women and the roles of gender (such as lesbians, or wives, and so on and so forth). They talked about female body shame. This did away with a lot of modesty laws in the US (such as skirt length, how much skin you were allowed to show in public) for women. Bathing suits became skimpier and skimpier, and so did women's casual dress. Women displayed on television and other media were not so strictly regulated. And then there was porn. Real people, naked women, porn. This was not a bad thing. Women spoke of sex positivity and allowing women to own their autonomy and sexuality fully without prejudice and double standards.
Of course, this could not please everyone. Feminism, by the end of the second wave, had delved so deeply into micro-politics that the ideology of the movement differed from person to person, depending on how they were brought up. Feminism, empowering women, became a show of "who is more right" rather than "this is equality, this is freedom.". Differences in opinions shook the movement from within like abortion, porn, sexuality, gender-roles, and so on. Porn being the most relevant. The sexual liberation of women had had an adverse affect on our culture. Women were glorified as beautiful beings and posted naked everywhere (as seen today). Their bodies sold things easily and everyone wanted to look. It was a luxury, something the people were not able to see very often before with minor exceptions. Porn, by the 80s, was so large and so invasive, some women were starting to shun away from sexual liberation. Intra-feminism was at war. Literally. The movement was called the "Feminist Sex War" and it lead to the third wave feminism starting in the 90s. This covered quite a few topics, but to get to the point I am trying to make here:
Anti-porn feminist would say that such images made women sex objects and less than people. This causes sexism against women, different than old sexism, and violence against the everyday woman. Sex positive feminist said that porn and images of nude women was sexual liberation. That it was displaying ownership over her whole autonomy. It was her permission and her body to show if she wanted to. And it gives NO ONE permission to cause violence against her.
Ironically, should the patriarchy have ANYTHING to do with any of this, female nudity would never be displayed because women are property under patriarchy. Not people with rights and opinions and bodies.
This is why people get confused when you say, "don't tell women what to wear, tell boys to stop raping." (and i wont go into the sexism in that, today at least) and then turn around and say, "These women in video games, and media, real and fake, are being pornographic and sexually objectifying towards women. This causes violence and sexism. This is bad, and does not represent women, and should be removed or changed."
You cannot, by definition, be both sex positive and anti-porn. I know how feminists love to cling to definitions. Please stop trying to blame men for the sexism we caused ourselves. You cannot police male sexuality. Men are attracted to women. They did not force anyone to be nude or "objectify" themselves.
As for me, and how I feel about female sexual objectification: Objectification is a state of mind, caused and done only by the observer. You can personify something, or you can objectify something. But that is all you. It is the perpetrator of violence, and the anti-porn individuals that cause objectification. Not expression. I am Sex Positive, completely, and without question.
Samar Rathi
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,001
- Likes
- 1,211
@Rowdy @Sakal Gharelu Ustad
Now tell me bro this is the thing few morons want to adapt in India.Cause is right as they say it empower Women and fight against gender discrimination and i'am all for it but does it really stand for it?
Or is this the new gender supremacy thing and every problem can be taken out of context and blame on men as every problem in pakistan is RAW doing.
Now tell me bro this is the thing few morons want to adapt in India.Cause is right as they say it empower Women and fight against gender discrimination and i'am all for it but does it really stand for it?
Or is this the new gender supremacy thing and every problem can be taken out of context and blame on men as every problem in pakistan is RAW doing.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,114
- Likes
- 7,762
It will happen in India as more women will go to work and joint family system will get destroyed.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,254
- Likes
- 3,061
Thats why a man should be ahead of the curve.
Move to europe and get euro girl pregnant and get the welfare state to take care of the kids.
Pro Tip : Norway is best for this plan ... also sweden.
Samar Rathi
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,001
- Likes
- 1,211
I agree and i won't let my wife get full time job ,here and there doing tuition or teacher job is ok as it end around 2 pm but full 8 am to 8 pm job destroy childern childhood as it happening to my niece.
At the 11 year age she has glass and she is not emotionally attached to her parents. She only see them around 1-2 hour per day only and they are not even part of her life from the very early age.
I will ask my wife either you provide for family and i stay as housewife or i provide and you stay as housewife.(that's my way of gender equality )
You always have a plan brother.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,254
- Likes
- 3,061
https://twitter.com/DeepikaBhardwaj
Fucked up world I say ead this twitter feed.
Fucked up world I say ead this twitter feed.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,403
- Likes
- 4,199
I don't get it why a man like you afraid of feminazis.
I find them hot especially when they are in starting stage.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,254
- Likes
- 3,061
hahaha ..... not afraid bro........... just cautious..........
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,715
- Likes
- 648
Hot women have it pretty good everywhere. So, they don't get riled up over silly things like men opening doors and providing for them. These things work to their advantage.
The ugly/weird ones can't get dates so they lash out against society to fill a void.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,403
- Likes
- 4,199
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,715
- Likes
- 648
I propose three fundamental laws of sociology:
1) Attractiveness is inversely proportional to anger.
2) Intelligence is inversely proportional to criminal behaviour.
3) Socioeconomic status is directly proportional to both attractiveness and intelligence.
1) Attractiveness is inversely proportional to anger.
2) Intelligence is inversely proportional to criminal behaviour.
3) Socioeconomic status is directly proportional to both attractiveness and intelligence.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,403
- Likes
- 4,199
Criminals have much more intelligence than an average man.
I find fault in your 2nd law.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 10,569
- Likes
- 25,231
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 7,114
- Likes
- 7,762
Also, solves the low sex ratio problem in India a little bit!
sob
Mod
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,425
- Likes
- 3,805
and also our population problem.
