@Arnie…Women don’t think like men, so all the logic in the world means nothing to them. All their thoughts revolve around themselves. When they see another woman they basically look in the mirror and say, “Hey, she’s like me, I’m all things good so she must be all things good as well.”

Basically it’s like solipsism and narcissism combining to form a womans ego. There is no leap beyond “self.” Which is why all in of history in every diverse culture you always hear of men sacrificing themselves to save others. Men make the ultimate sacrifice to save others. Women of course will take this virtue and turn into a vile concept calling some “macho guy thing.” Like a man would die to prove a point. Pathetic. Look at all the firemen, (downgraded to firefighters) who died during 9/11. Only men died even though 10% were women. They’ll actually say things like women were too clever or smart. They’ll mock any virtue a man posseses.

I’ve tried to tell them about their great matriarchy call the ghetto, they can’t make the leap of logic because they simply don’t have that ability.

Right now they’re slut walking, tell men to keep it in their pants, all the while parading with pride for not being able to keep it in their pants. They can’t make that leap of logic because when they look in the mirror “you” are not like “them.”

A valiant effort Arnie but valor isn’t within their realm.

How many mothers do you think died to save their children?

Silly Lady V, everyone knows that doesn’t count. If it wasn’t on the movie 300, then it didn’t happen.

A quick Google reveals that at least 2 police officers and 1 EMT who died on 9/11 were women.

“A quick Google reveals that at least 2 police officers and 1 EMT who died on 9/11 were women.”

On 9/11? or as a result of exposure to dust and debris several years after 9/11? My google search can’t seem to find any reports of female emergency workers who died when the towers collapsed. Perhaps you can provide a link?

@Kratch,

Here’s one:

Captain Kathy Mazza was killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks while attempting to rescue the victims trapped in the World Trade Center.

She was leading a group of people down stairs when the building started to collapse. Using her 9mm sidearm, Captain Mazza shot out glass walls, enabling many to escape. Captain Mazza was the first female commander of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/15797-captain-kathy-mazza

Here’s still another:

http://todayremember.blogspot.com/2010/10/today-we-remember-yamel-merino.html

Arnold is an alphasshole, and in league with the wymyn. Therefore, this whole arguement is faulty. Fuck that FUCK Arnold and the alpha bitches who fucked him. Seriously.

CB: Ah… My mistake, carry on.

@Kratch:

Uh, yeah, we know women have affairs. Women are just as capable of cheating on their partners as men are. A woman could also not know who the father of her child is if she was single and had a series of one night stands.

Sometimes I wonder if intersexed people are half evil, or how that works.

Nobby – Sadly, I assume they go under the same nebulous “EW, GAY” category as everyone who isn’t a masculine exclusive-heterosexual cisman.

@Arnie, “The Origin of the Family: Private Property of the State” was written by Engels (and it does not make the claims that Arnie attributes to it even then), not Marx, after Marx’s death-just another example of how MRAs don’t know even the most basic shit about Marxism either.

Capt B.: “It was Kratch who asked for links. He’s provided links when I asked in the past, so I thought I’d return the favor.”

It was. And thank you for providing them.

Lady V.: “Where do the men figure into this? I mean, most dudes who fuck married women know they’re married. So what’s their responsibility to society/the woman/the child?”

The men figure into this because David made the insinuation that when a man cheats, it’s because he’s some sex obsessed deviant, not because some other reason, such as a moment of vulnerability.

But it seems to me that you are trying to defend David’s assertion that when a man cheats, it’s because he is some sex fiend, but you also seem to think that, when a woman cheats, it’s because of the man she’s cheating with? Are you seriously going to make that double standard? That no matter if it’s the husband or wife that’s cheating, it is a MAN’S fault?

Tofu: “Uh, yeah, we know women have affairs.”

But do you accuse her of being some kind of sex obsessed fiend for having that affair? Or is it perhaps a moment of weakness? David jumped to an awfully quick and accusatory assumption. I’m asking full stop, if that assumption would be made if he was female, because I highly doubt it. He is a sex obsessed sex fiend, in Davids opinion, because he is male.

@David; Are you suggesting that, because Arnold was promiscuous in his youth, when at carnival in rio…3 years before he was married, that he is some kind of sexual deviant? You made a misandric assumption, own up to it.

I was thinking… all of this presumes that biological fathers would not be happy to know that they have a child out there and want to take responsibility and take care of them (I know so many that do). In fact sometimes they go to court to GET custody away from a non-biological father who wants to keep the child that he has been a father to for all the child’s life :O (and that father fights to KEEP the child regardless of genetics :) ) (and a lot of those times it has nothing to do w/ evil intent or malicious intent of the mother either, just unfortunate or incidental circumstances :( ) Loving children and wanting to take care of them is I think something a lot of ppl feel, male and female… even in custody battles, everybody assumes that it’s just parents using children as games, but in my exp, a lot of those situations where we as outsiders (or as friends of a party) presume that, it’s cuz the parents now dislike each other and dun want the other raising children they rly rly care about and love (nobody would want ppl they distrust/dislike to raise their children, it’s natural protective parental instinct)… :) I mean such cases are still v v sad :( But I think we shouldn’t underestimate how much many ppl love their children and want to RAISE children :) (& i know there are bad ppl and exceptions, there always are… but I’m saying that we shouldn’t just make assumptions based on our own personal feelings towards child rearing, or our own biases about other genders, or theoretical ideas on how we’d feel and etc :) )

@redlocker, well, he claims Marx was into subjectivism and moral relativism whereas Marx was rather straightforward in his refusal to formulate an ethical theory. So stating that Marx made a statement that adoption of any specific ethical theory was a central part of creating communism is pretty asinine, especially one that fits so poorly with his metaphysics. Marx had a tendancy towards a strong empiricist materialist outlook in general, and was a fan of Feuerbach (enough to do his Ph.D thesis on Feuerbach). The Feuerbach connection is crucial, because those who ignore it conflate the Young Hegelians (aka Left Hegelians) with Hegel and assume they hold similar moral theories, whereas Young Hegelian Marxists are actually more adequately understood as having adapted Feuerbach’s theories (Engels, surprise, surprise, also wrote on the philosophy of Feuerbach in an essay that is hilarious in translation-because many translators turn “human” into “man” within the Feuerbach quote and thereby suggest that men commonly procreate with other men and it is extra hilarious because Engels doesn’t seem to be getting the sex metaphor Feuerbach is utilizing either and wonders why Feuerbach discusses these interactions only happening in pairs, though Freud seems to have gotten pretty much nothing but the sex metaphor out those same passages). Feuerbach is generally understood as a humanist materialist-not a relativist or a subjectivist.

Also, I can’t see too many trained philosophers (Marx=dude with Ph.D in philosophy, remember) using a phrase like “subjective reason” without qualifying their terms-because the term “reason” strongly implies the utilization of a logical or argumentative system. Also, subjectivism and relativism are not the same thing. You can have an objective relativism (look at relativity of motion, for an example that makes that concept really clear). A strict materialist like Marx is unlikely to be a subjectivist about anything (remember, this person did explicitly take the position that science could figure out exactly how brains made emotions and thoughts), and Marx never intimates a support of anything other than an objective reality or an objective view of human social interactions (even when he gets his anthropology or history wrong-he still thinks there is a fact to the matter).

If I am pulling a THASF, David, feel free to delete this, but there is just so much philosophy and history fail in just those two sentences of Arnie’s that I could not resist.

“well, he claims Marx was into subjectivism and moral relativism whereas Marx was rather straightforward in his refusal to formulate an ethical theory.”

No Marx advocated taking advantage of women by catering to their gynocentric proclivities. You just have to tell women they are oppressed i.e. they are owed something. Works every time : )

We have to remember that feminism IS socialism \ communism so it is important to understand its ideological roots.

It takes some seriously intellectually vacuous people to find their way out of an intellectual debate by literally sticking their fingers in their ears and telling someone they won’t listen while making childish remarks and attempts to belittle their opponent. It’s nothing but pure affirmation to me.

Your thought process begins and ends with “feminism is about being equal” Goebbels was not joking about the methodology to bringing propaganda to the masses. Holy shit.

Think about this for a minute. Get your heads together, holy shit.

@arnie, Note: I am both a feminist and a Marxist. I am not a Leninist, I am a democratic socialist, but I am a Marxist. So, you see Marxism being pro-feminism or feminism being pro-Marxism would not be a problem in my book. What is a problem is your blatant and obvious misunderstanding and misrepresentation of philosophy and history.

For example, because, yes I did read your link (give me brain bleach now please), wherein your sole support of your notion seems to be your claim of Kollontai as a feminist, despite the fact that, while she was an ardent women’s rights advocate and some later feminists have adopted her, Kollontai actively refused the feminist label, stating that the feminist movement was a bourgeois capitalist construct. I think you cite Kollontai because you assume that people will not know of her, because you assume that people will not know much about the history of the left or actual feminist leftists of the time, and because you desire to use her association with Stalinism as an ad hominem attack on feminism. You are so obsessed with being able to use the Bolsheviks as a slur that you even ignore points that would better bolster your “argument” for a leftist-feminist conspiracy. For example, in the US, Eugene Debs, the founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran one of the top ten (by percent of votes received) third party candidacies in the post civil war US the first election after women gained the right to vote in the US, and used his support of suffrage as a key point in his campaign materials. Debs founded the IWW, ran the largest leftist party in US history for a long period, was praised by Susan B. Anthony (it was Debs who invited her to Terra Haute), quoted by Margaret Sanger as a proponent of the legalization of elective birth control, wrote papers calling for equal rights for men and women (as well as equal pay-necessary for a true socialism, in his view), and gave suffragists editorial space in his union publications. Of course, the Socialist Party of America and Debs have a rather positive history (and a rather anti-Stalinist history), and as your goal is to try and stir up a gut reaction that commie=bad rather than make any real historical analysis, I can see where the root of your obsession with the rare Stalinist women’s rights advocate comes from.

Also, again, the dude that wrote the paper about women as the original oppressed class was Engels, not Marx (quote the right communist, please). You realize that Marx and Engels were not one mega-person right? Additionally, your assumption that Engels did not believe what he said, especially given the fact that he appears to have been relatively committed to these ideas in political practice, is asinine. Engels’ assertion is not that women as an oppressed class is a good rhetorical tool, but rather that it is an anthropological and historical fact (note the anthropological and historical claims that riddle Origins of the Family). Now, you can dispute his claims or his sources if you want. But asserting that his claims were mere subterfuge with no evidence of that fact just makes you look like a willful ignoramus.

Here, let me give you an example of a standard passage from Origin of the Family:

“The further political history of Athens up to the time of Solon is only imperfectly known. The office of basileus fell into disuse; the positions at the head of the state were occupied by archons elected from the nobility. The power of the nobility continuously increased, until about the year 600 B.C. it became insupportable. And the principal means for suppressing the common liberty were – money and usury.”

Yep, there is a whole section like that on the rise of the Athenian state (not to be confused with the other section on the Greek Gens). It is a rather dense work, full of discussion of history and anthropology used as evidence to try to bolster its claims. The “let’s trick those ladies with long detailed passages about history-prehistoric to modern-demonstrating that societal structure oppresses them” ruse is certainly not a common one, you must admit. Why, it almost looks as if Engels actually believes his position is right, as most people have a habit of doing…

Sidenote: Marxism and fascism are mutually exclusive, and fascists are almost always explicitly anti-feminist.

I can only imagine the type of women who hang out in a manboobz forum. I won’t make any speculation but you know what I’m talking about.

It’s all about the lulz, dude. This place gives us the chance to laugh at the ridiculousness of the MRM, rather than just despair that people who actually believe this exist.

Conversely, many MRAs are very intelligent men and accomplished as well.

See? That statement produced some quality lulz right there.

Conversely, many MRAs are very intelligent men and accomplished as well.

Would you tell them to get their asses in here? I’d like the chance to talk to some of them.

But it seems to me that you are trying to defend David’s assertion that when a man cheats, it’s because he is some sex fiend, but you also seem to think that, when a woman cheats, it’s because of the man she’s cheating with? Are you seriously going to make that double standard? That no matter if it’s the husband or wife that’s cheating, it is a MAN’S fault

I said no such thing. Previous to my comment, most MRAs were jumping on either Baena or Shriver, or women in general who cheat. It was all their fault. But I wondered about the MRA view on a man who sleeps with a married woman, knowing she’s married. Does he have any responsibility to the husband or society, and if so, what? What about a woman who knowingly sleeps with a married man?

People cheat for all sorts of reasons, and generalizing why anyone of any gender commits infidelity is going to be a useless waste of time.

Fathers “owning” their daughters sexuality, which of course turns a fathers love and concern about his daughters welfare into an oppression. Or women forbidden to work as miners which turns all mens concern for all womens safety into an oppression.

It’s one thing to be concerned for your daughter’s welfare, it’s quite another thing to think you can tell her who she can and can’t marry, to keep her at home to prevent her from being ‘soiled’ and to think you have the right to give her away when she gets married, as if she were your property. People sometimes joke about the shotgun wedding, where a poor boy is forced to marry at gunpoint a girl he’s had sex with and impregnanted – but they forget that she’s being just as forced into this marriage as he. If a mother were as concerned with the state of her son’s sexuality, we’d all get worried.

And if a woman wants to become a coal miner, and knows the risks and accepts them, and has access to all reasonable safety measures, why shouldn’t she be a coal miner? If everyone is concerned with women’s safety, then why aren’t they concerned with the men’s safety as coal miners as well?

@Lady Victoria von Syrus

A quote from you…”If everyone is concerned with women’s safety, then why aren’t they concerned with the men’s safety as coal miners as well?”

Exactly. Why aren’t you concerned for mens welfare? Because men aren’t like you is why.

You’re of course are correct Arnie, feminism started as a marxist/communist/socialist (take your pick) hate movement designed to destroy the family and transfer all social, economic and political power from men to women with the State being the ultimate authority. This is all it could ever be.

Actually modern feminism (in the US at any rate) is thought to have begun in 1848 with the Seneca Falls Convention–which demanded, among other things, the right to vote. Although the attendees were mostly women, they also included such notable manginas as Fredrick Douglass, who declared that he as a black man could not accept the right to vote unless it were given to women as well. By the way, Douglass was true to his word, and fought for women’s suffrage until the day he died, long after free black men had won the right to vote.

@law1204

How laughable when you say this.

“Why do you get to have a “right” to another human being? A “right” to do what? Your rights with regard to your children include making sure they are well cared for and make it to adulthood alive, in one piece, and emotionally stable. YOUR feelings in the matter, well, don’t matter.”

Men don’t have the right to another human being, only women do. Like Ceasars of old women give the thumbs up for life and the thumbs down and that “human being” as you put loses the right to even be called a seperate life.

Your next fine statement of

“If you created a child, YOU should be the one to take care of it regardless of the circumstances. But if it is determined that you are a social bad influence on the child, you don’t have a “right” to be around that child anymore. I fail to see what’s so hard to comprehend about that. That goes for either gender.”

Suddenly at the perfect ones decree I have a small part in “creation” yet the “care” I’m permitted is once again contingent upon what level she allows; either direct care (a father as part of the family) or an ATM (child support, maybe visitation rights granted be her).

Strange how the ones claiming powerlessness have all the power. A mans unborn child will live or die by her command, He’s part of the family or merely a paying spectator by her command. I’m sort of breaking my own rule of trying to debate logically with one of the perfect ones. Unfortunately abstract thought is beyond your comprehension.

“I mean everyone here knows men die 7 years earlier, men recieve much harsher conviction rates and sentences, 80% of suicides, 95% of work related deaths/injuries”

—“What does this have to do with women?”

Ohhhhh ohhhhh lol I’m on the floor laughing. Wow I LOVE IT! Her nature is amazing..wow unbelievable.

Oh, and a neat tie-in with the earlier Marxism & Debs point-Mary Harris Jones (aka Mother Jones) founded the IWW with Debs and was an organizer for the UMW (United Mine Workers). She was seen as a controversial figure in Appalachia and by women of the UMWA (United Mill Workers Association) because women and girls working the textile mills when she was brought in to get them to try to get them to strike together, rather than seperately, with the higher paid adult male workers who did the same job fought against her anti-sufferage and anti-women’s labor positions. A long time organizer of coal miners, Jones was a socialist unionist. Her work on mine conditions is considered a pivotal part of the US coal mining safety movement. In short, go fuck yourselves, you ignorant little MRA shits.

I live in an apartment with a cat! Two cats, in fact! They both belong to my male roommate.

And NWO, you really gotta start saying what you actually believe. All I get out of sarcasto-speak is that you’re very angry, but sometimes I’m genuinely unsure what you’re angry about.

Like: “Men don’t have the right to another human being, only women do.”

I assume you actually believe that no one should have a right to another human being. Well, I agree with you. I think most people here do too. So why so angry?

The arguments with you are very strange, because you don’t argue with the feminists here, you argue with what you think they believe, and when they say what they really believe, you accuse them of lying.

NWO – “Feminists think all men should be castrated by angry goats!”
Everyone – “No, of course not.”
NWO – “Liar! You really support goatstration and just won’t admit it! I see right through you!”

I just don’t have an answer to that kind of thinking.