Post: #1

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/07/...tupid-v92/

I really can't add all that much to the analysis, but as usual, a male feminist assumes that feminism has been fantastic for men.

Given how power-obssesed feminists are, it truly is bizarre that they assume men would be better giving up the power they "have."

Once again, it proves feminism is narcissism, as feminists have a long history of mocking various groups, only to do an Orwellian 180 and suddenly deeply empathize with said group.

Idolized feminists like Gloria Steinem ruthlessly downed gay men, calling them pussy-ass faggots. Was that homophobic? No, no, no. See, she supports gay rights, now. As usual, the Left refuse to police their own in an equal fashion in which they police others.

Completely unable to understand empathy and human emotions cannot be constrained by the strictures of ideology, they double down on what they claim to know best - themselves.

However, they can only exist if they never know the truth about themselves. The gap between how they see themselves and who they really are is so wide they could not exist if they knew that.

Post: #2

It was a good article.

There is no greater focal point for my utter disgust and scorn than the mangina.

Manginas are weak men dependent on having their identity validated externally. They are weak because they don't have the inner strength to validate their own identity independent of social custom or expectation. If you want to reject society's expectations of you as a man, the mangina will be the first one to tell you you're wrong for wanting to do so, and will try to force you back into the bubble. He'll do this only for another pat on the back. He doesn't care what's right or wrong, what's fair, what's inclusive, he only wants his childish ego validated.

Make no mistake, when the views of the manosphere go mainstream and rise to cultural prominence, and this will happen, the manginas will change their tune simply because they'll no longer have a source of cultural validation for repeating feminist boilerplate.

Manginas are like tall grass, they lean whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

Post: #3

(07-24-2013 03:53 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  It was a good article.

There is no greater focal point for my utter disgust and scorn than the mangina.

Manginas are weak men dependent on having their identity validated externally. They are weak because they don't have the inner strength to validate their own identity independent of social custom or expectation. If you want to reject society's expectations of you as a man, the mangina will be the first one to tell you you're wrong for wanting to do so, and will try to force you back into the bubble. He'll do this only for another pat on the back. He doesn't care what's right or wrong, what's fair, what's inclusive, he only wants his childish ego validated.

Make no mistake, when the views of the manosphere go mainstream and rise to cultural prominence, and this will happen, the manginas will change their tune simply because they'll no longer have a source of cultural validation for repeating feminist boilerplate.

Manginas are like tall grass, they lean whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

   

So much truth. I wrote a whole article about these pathetic specimens--and the observations you've made here--on ROK.

7 Traits Of The Male Feminist

Post: #4

The most accurate description, and perhaps clearest way to think of the self-centered nature of feminist "equality," is that of "right-side equalization." I mean that in a statistical sense: feminists will look at the varying distributions of quality of life, achievement, and status, note that the bell curve for males has longer and fatter tails (referred to in statistical terms as kurtosis) and focus the entirety of their energy on asymmetrically skewing the female distributions to match the right side only of the male distributions, ignoring the left side of the male distributions altogether.

In real world terms, this manifests in demands for equal pay and executive board jobs for women, while ignoring the grotesquely male-skewed workload and labor casualty rates; celebrating new rates of female academic achievement, while turning a blind eye to male-filled special education and remedial classes; urging election of female politicians, ascension of female dignitaries, and female inclusion in prestigious career tracks, while declining to advocate for proportional representation among prisoners or the homeless; or lobbying for draconian legal changes protecting women from violence and sexual assault, while allowing male victims of the same no quarter from suffering.

It's dishonest, and disingenuous. And yet the majority of the populace is blind to it, as the left side of the male distribution is just as invisible to them as feminist doctrine requires. Feminism and its male protective cohort are the worst blend of modern liberalism and conservatism: the ideology of immutable-class victimhood as deserving of special treatment, coupled with the systemic cognitive bias, probably steeped in utter classism, that the male supporter is incapable himself of falling into the left side of the distribution.

Post: #5

lurker:

I have been meaning to check out those posts of yours on fat acceptance.

I'll get to it in early August & give a response.

Post: #6

No rush. I know the bar is next week. Good luck. Remember to write simply with a lot of white space, underline your headings, etc. Make it look more like an outline than an essay.

Then get hammered.