This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Seriously man, get over it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-41082938

He doesn't say anything wrong per se, (of course women  tennis players work hard) the wrong thing is that he is doing it to serve the globalists and their "equality" agenda.

We have had thousands of years of patriarchat/patriarchy but the 21 st century is beginning to turn the tide towards matriarchat/matriarchy.

Ultimately, the goal is to destroy family, and turn men/women into easily manipulable and disposable fearful slaves without any root.

Murray is again gullible and stupid, thinking he is "clever" just like with that Anyone but England joke.

well said Murray

Reminds me so much of Brexit. The ongoing conversation that people not longer want to keep hearing about!

Is there anything new or relevant to be discussed?

This is the most relevant conversation there is!

For those who are still alive and refuse to be culled.

Look back at the kast 15 years and how much Britain/world hqs changed...now try to project into future, next 15. Next 30.

I don't mind him saying they work hard. I do object to the lie that womens sport is generally any good - I mean, has anyone ever watch womens football (obviously not many will, as it's complete crap). 

Women are great at loads of things, and better than men at lots too. Unfortunately the really big thing they are useless at is building civilisations. We're about to find out just how badly they can screw one up.

bogbrush wrote:Unfortunately the really big thing they are useless at is building civilisations.

What do you mean by that?

I would imagine that maybe poorer countries with more traditional values the situation maybe harder for women but in the developed western countries? I'd guess that most drop out of sport because it's no longer considered cool for them.

I don't really agree with the "we need more women here or there" arguments as in this day and age surely everyone is free to do what they want. Why should we apriori assume that there should be 50 50 representation everywhere?

I just think it is a condescending statement from Murray which has the opposite effect. Women do not need men to tell them how well they are doing....Like we don't need women to tell us how hard we work.

In a way it is relegating women athletes to a kind of Paralympic game, "they work as hard (or sacrifice as much) .... yet don't reach our level. Men and Women are different.....let's just appreciate that difference.

Spot on Ten with that.

The need to keep reiterating something devalues it over time.

None of the rights we all have now have come without fight, in the case of women rights, they would not have the rights they have now without feminist activism and fight

still lot to do, in the first world women still earn less in average than men for the same job, in third world they still get mutilated when they are born...

in spain for example, more than half of all Judges are women, still in the highest organism in spanish 
Judiciary, has no women in it.

why is that? its called glass ceiling, and it does exist in first world (if spain can be considered there, which frankly I myself doubt)
so yes, feminism is absolutely neccessary still in these days, and not only in third world

naxroy wrote:None of the rights we all have now have come without fight, in the case of women rights, they would not have the rights they have now without feminist activism and fight

still lot to do, in the first world women still earn less in average than men for the same job, in third world they still get mutilated when they are born...

in spain for example, more than half of all Judges are women, still in the highest organism in spanish 
Judiciary, has no women in it.

why is that? its called glass ceiling, and it does exist in first world (if spain can be considered there, which frankly I myself doubt)
so yes, feminism is absolutely neccessary still in these days, and not only in third world

Yes, even we have heard of one of them - Julia Santamaria, totally gutless and useless.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1014046/jaimie-fuller-is-spain-truly-corrupt-we-can-t-be-blamed-for-thinking-so

naxroy wrote:None of the rights we all have now have come without fight, in the case of women rights, they would not have the rights they have now without feminist activism and fight

still lot to do, in the first world women still earn less in average than men for the same job, in third world they still get mutilated when they are born...

in spain for example, more than half of all Judges are women, still in the highest organism in spanish 
Judiciary, has no women in it.

why is that? its called glass ceiling, and it does exist in first world (if spain can be considered there, which frankly I myself doubt)
so yes, feminism is absolutely neccessary still in these days, and not only in third world

That is one of the biggest myths out there. And I'll tell you why. If the simple metric is job title (which often or not it is, because having to go into organisations and look at the detail requires effort and a lot of it) then how vague are such studies. Whenever studies are published, they never show the exact metrics. They will say "oh a female vice president of a bank in the US earns less than a male vice president of a global car manufacturer in Japan"

I find such studies to be a waste of time and load of crap. When they don't factor in: performance or bonus related packages, pension and share scheme packages, healthcare plans, annual leave arrangements, length of service. All these influence salary. So taking the same 2 job titles and then comparing salary as it's quantified just doesn't work as an effective basis to make comparisons.

He's a social justice warrior.  And he's a tit.  He's always been a tit.  YOu won't hear him talking about women's rights in Muslim countries, because that's where the talk is needed most and doesn't get you nice brownie points from the snobby establishment or from BBC.  It gets you called a racist Nazi and thrown in jail on trumped up charges like Tommy Robinson. 

Leftists and feminists (mostly leftists) are concerned with image, their peers, and warm and fuzzy feelings.  They are cowards when it comes to being vocal about real issues. Things that aren't "safe".

As for the gender wage gap - it's been PROVEN to be false.  PROVEN. And in tennis, it's the other way by FACT./  Women are getting as much as men for LESS work and for bringing in LESS money by tickets and TV viewers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iqhBGQZmxM

Watch it.

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Unfortunately the really big thing they are useless at is building civilisations.

What do you mean by that?

He means look at places like Sweden, and see what socialism and liberalism (what women massively vote for) has done to those places.  Have you seen the state on London these days?  Women, their votes, and their continued push for identity politics and "kindness" have ushered in a barbaric religion and millions if its followers.  Merkel let in 1 million migrants. SInce then, rapes and abuses and attacks have been off the scale in Germany.  Something you aren't being told.

This is what feminism and socialism and liberalism has done to Sweden... THEY ARE CUCKOO!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/16/sweden-man-free-festival-comes-fire/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/09/14/swedish-police-unable-hold-murder-suspect-due-lack-translators/

That stuff is mainly against left wingers, why does that mean women specifically are bad at building civilisations?
Plenty of men and women are unbearably both far right and far left.

Even the Islamic culture which you critique, in these countries it's men who are doing most of the oppressing.

In every country, men are more violent and have a higher percentage of violent criminals than women.
In many countries, especially less developed ones and theocratic ones, it's men who oppress women.
Most of the jihadis are men, most terrorists are men.
Most neo-Nazis and nazi sympathisers are men.

I'm a male, but I can recognise the facts.

That's only because men are stronger.  And, btw, if you look at Muslim women's views in UK... it ain't much better from them either.  Muslims believe in the Koran and Muhammad and that's the end of it.  

Since he he killed people, conquered, and had sex with a 9 year old child... they think it's fine.  And that;s why most Muslim countries are a disaster and why all 10 (possibly 11) countries that have death sentence for being gay are Muslim.

When will wonder Murray address that injustice?  Oh, that's right... he won't haha.


And are you really trying to say it's ok for Sweden to ban all males from concerts just because the Muslim males that the WOMEN generally campaigned to let in are raping women?  Are you for real?  And what about the good things men do, eh?  The speaker, electric, amplifier, computer, the sound engineers, the manual labour crap jobs too... All male. 

But, sure, let's bring up rapists.  Sweden is a basket case. Swedish women are primarily the voters of the parties letting in 3rd world Muslims... and when those Muslims start raping and groping en masse at concerts, they can't admit it's the Muslim males doing it!  Fantastic. 

Women can also blow themselves up, so what explains the gender gap in jihadis?
And as for Nazis and Nazi sympathisers, most of them aren't actually actively violent, they don't use their physical strength, so why the gender gap there?

Sweden may be a basket case, but the primary people to blame in that instance once again would be the rapists, most of whom are men. The voters who voted for a specific immigration policy did not want anyone to get raped, so you can't say they were malicious in their intent, unlike the rapists.

Wtf has that got to do with

A. Murray not speaking up for women where it is most needed.
B. The fact Sweden is banning all males just because the Muslim males are groping and raping women

I think sometimes you just like arguing for the sake of it.  Murray has made himself look idiotic by trying to look like a knight in shining armour (when really he is a SJW coward), and women in the West are bringing about their own destruction. They can't wait to harbour deadly Muslims from dangerous collapsed countries. OH NO.... but it's not those doing the raping... IT'S MEN!! GET EMMM!

When will we see women in the same numbers in the army?  What explains that gender gap?  You know where these feminists have the largest gap?  Their big fat mouths.  And Islam is going to fill it for them.

Daniel wrote:Wtf has that got to do with

A. Murray not speaking up for women where it is most needed.

Well you already know my view on this, I think it's pretty pathetic that 'left wingers' in the west don't stand up for women in theocratic countries. I don't care about Murray that much because he's a tennis player, but the left wing thinkers and politicians should be speaking out.

Daniel wrote:
B. The fact Sweden is banning all males just because the Muslim males are groping and raping women

Well it's not like they've been banned from the country, there's been a very few tiny examples where men have been banned.. which is still batshit crazy I admit. But let's not take it out of proportion, this isn't a regular occurrence even in Sweden.
But you're not addressing my point, the primary guilty party in all these cases are themselves men. How can u pin this mainly on women? You addressed the gender wage gap, but not the jihadi or neo-nazi gender gap.

DECIMA wrote:That stuff is mainly against left wingers, why does that mean women specifically are bad at building civilisations?

Because women, as a rule, aren't hard-wired to do the type of things that cause civilisations to rise. They don't fight to acquire resources, they don't kill other groups, they don't prioritise competition and conflict.

If you look to the animal kingdom males tend to fight like Hell and the females are happy to fall in with the dominant male because she gets resources or protection sometimes, but definitely the strongest genes for her offspring. Bear in mind she makes a bigger investment in offspring so it's very important to her that she uses the strongest males to breed with.

You might not like those qualities but unfortunately without them you're just sat there waiting to be ruled. Probably by another society run by men. These things aren't all negative, they drive advancement.

I've heard it said that if society had always been ruled by women we'd still be in mud huts.

DECIMA wrote:

Daniel wrote:Wtf has that got to do with

A. Murray not speaking up for women where it is most needed.

Well you already know my view on this, I think it's pretty pathetic that 'left wingers' in the west don't stand up for women in theocratic countries. I don't care about Murray that much because he's a tennis player, but the left wing thinkers and politicians should be speaking out.

Daniel wrote:
B. The fact Sweden is banning all males just because the Muslim males are groping and raping women

Well it's not like they've been banned from the country, there's been a very few tiny examples where men have been banned.. which is still batshit crazy I admit. But let's not take it out of proportion, this isn't a regular occurrence even in Sweden.
But you're not addressing my point, the primary guilty party in all these cases are themselves men. How can u pin this mainly on women? You addressed the gender wage gap, but not the jihadi or neo-nazi gender gap.

Women aren't going to speak out because there's a huge misunderstanding about left wing feminist thinking. It's nothing to do with women's rights, it's to do with the desire to wreck this society.

You will never hear a leftist feminist complain about FGM, oppressive clothing, etc. because they actually don't give a damn for women.

world is well fucked up if most people think like some of you

naxroy wrote:world is well fucked up if most people think like some of you

The world has always been "fucked up" to be fair. Young Buddha was disgusted by what he saw when he left his well protected palace.

As long as we can discuss different views without fighting, there is hope....though as some would say here even fighting can also be a necessary evil.

But one day you may realise that political correctness is at least as violent as it's opposite.

You don't have to be a young Buddha to be disgusted by this world and what people have made of it.

It's a sign of spiritual health, search for truth.

The question is why have we made it such an ugly mess nearly destroying our home, this beautiful planet.

And each other.

The answer is in you NITB!

This world is a projection of our soul!

and its been made my men...

Tenez wrote:The answer is in you NITB!

This world is a projection of our soul!

yes, but that is a description of the state of soul in relation to the outer, the relation and interrelation.

It is a kind of an answer, but my question was more rhetorical for others to give ideas of a "solution" to the problem.

The alpha and the omega.

naxroy wrote:and its been made my men...

Do you think it would have been any better if it was made my women?

naxroy wrote:and its been made my men...

But who make the men?

I do think it would be a better place had it been made by both men and women

naxroy wrote:I do think it would be a better place had it been made by both men and women

and hopefully thats the future

naxroy wrote:

naxroy wrote:I do think it would be a better place had it been made by both men and women

and hopefully thats the future

yes, that all sounds nice on paper, but how are you/we going to achieve it?

Even if your best case scenario came true (eg equal pay etc) I am not sure we could say
homo homini lupus est is not valid any more. (because if pushed into the corner, no projection of your soul would be able to change our nature)

How many of us are good at loving and forgiving?
Or even want to love or forgive.

It's a daily struggle.

bogbrush wrote:Women aren't going to speak out because there's a huge misunderstanding about left wing feminist thinking. It's nothing to do with women's rights, it's to do with the desire to wreck this society.

The only person with a real lack of understanding here is you. What evidence do you have for that claim?
Left wing feminists do not have a desire to wreck this society. Do some left wingers exaggerate the impact of things like the potential gender wage gap? Yes. Do some blame the patriarchy when they should be taking self-responsibility? Yes. Do they want to wreck society? Nothing to suggest that.
Debates and discussions won't get anywhere if you make assumptions on the motives of others, and then ensure those assumed motives are as malicious as possible.
If you wanted me to assume the most malicious motives for your words now, I could do so. Ironically you would probably respond by saying it's the pattern of the left to make false assumptions to morally incriminate innocent people.

bogbrush wrote:You will never hear a leftist feminist complain about FGM, oppressive clothing, etc. because they actually don't give a damn for women.

Well actually I have personally heard leftists feminists speaking up on FGM, more and more recently. So your 'you will never' phrase is already proved wrong.
I do think there is a more accurate wider point, that women in the west don't speak out against the way women are treated in Islamic cultures as much as they should, and this is mainly because of political correctness. They notice that Muslims in the west are a 'minority' and get a lot of hate from groups like the EDL; so their instinct is to thus 'defend the minority'. I'm not defending it or agree with it, but I do realise it's to do more with political correctness than wanting to harm women.
But once again, you not only made a mistake, but you made the most negative possible assumption on the motives of those ideologically opposite.

Btw do also address the points made in my discussion with Daniel. The voting patterns between young and old is much more indicative of left vs right wing. The voting pattern differences between gender is there, but not as significant, not to the point where you can make a blanket statement giving credit/blame to women for left wing governments. Plenty of men are left wing too and swing the election.
However even if you criticise the results of left wing policy, the primary problem causers are still the males. It's males who came up with and carry out FGM. If women were in charge they wouldn't come up with a policy to mutilate the bit of their body which gives them pleasure. As I said to Daniel, the jihadis who you don't want brought into the country... most of those are males. And within the West, the majority of neo Nazis, Nazi sympathisers, and other far right hate groups are male. They're the ones with bad intentions, not everyday women.

bogbrush wrote:I've heard it said that if society had always been ruled by women we'd still be in mud huts.

Oh, that's great. Where did you hear that? The 1800's?

Well I'm waiting to see the "March against FGM" in London, attracting thousands of painted up SJW wimmin, or the one where they demand the abolition of oppressive dress codes. Noooo, still only the stuff demanding that Western men don't sit with their knees apart as it's "oppressive".

Wake up and judge people by their actions not their words. 

Obviously it's men who came up with FGM, because it's part of their primitive culture to maintain their harem-like control. If you chop the bits off to make them enjoy it less, and cover them up so nobody can see them anyway, the chances of control are much better. However those of us brought up in more advanced civilisations are appalled, and I'm extremely appalled that the wimmin who squawk  about the tiny perceived slights that a western man might make are silent in the face of this.

Pathetic, and pretty pathetic and somewhat proving of my point that you fanny around the point. Can you imagine trying to do the tough stuff required to build a civilisation while taking these overly careful neutral positions? Making stuff happens requires being decisive and following through, not faffing about worrying whether everyone still friends.

As for the mud hut thing, it's not a criticism of women it's just biology. By all means provide evidence of anything better every achieved by a society run by women and I'll reconsider. I'll save you the time, there isn't one.

bogbrush wrote:Well I'm waiting to see the "March against FGM" in London, attracting thousands of painted up SJW wimmin, or the one where they demand the abolition of oppressive dress codes. Noooo, still only the stuff demanding that Western men don't sit with their knees apart as it's "oppressive".

Wake up and judge people by their actions not their words.

Well if you've read my posts on this very thread you would see- I clearly condemned the lack of action of modern left wingers on the issue of the treatment of oppressed women in certain cultures- FGM being an example.
Where I drew a contrast between our positions was motive. I pointed out that it's far more likely to be due to political correctness and an oversensitive reaction to groups like the EDL. You said, and I quote exactly, it was a 'desire to wreck this society'. An ambitious claim with no evidence.

bogbrush wrote:Pathetic, and pretty pathetic and somewhat proving of my point that you fanny around the point. Can you imagine trying to do the tough stuff required to build a civilisation while taking these overly careful neutral positions? Making stuff happens requires being decisive and following through, not faffing about worrying whether everyone still friends.

Firstly I haven't taken carefully neutral positions, I've just been very thoughtful and reasonable.
Secondly I'm male, so not entirely sure how this would prove your point regardless.

bogbrush wrote:As for the mud hut thing, it's not a criticism of women it's just biology. By all means provide evidence of anything better every achieved by a society run by women and I'll reconsider. I'll save you the time, there isn't one.

I don't know bogbrush, for me saying 'if society had always been ruled by women we'd still be in mud huts' comes across as misogynistic. Am I being too harsh? If you want, I can debate with a softer tone. For now I'm just saying it as I see it. I don't like political correctness, but don't like reverse political correctness either, where I can't call out statements for sexism when it fits.
The reason you can't point to a society run by women is because they've been oppressed by men since the start of human civilisation; only in the last century have they been getting closer to equality, and that too only in certain countries. You're so aghast at the appalling treatment of women in Islamic cultures, but did you consider that this sort of treatment across all cultures throughout history may have been a reason they haven't been able to historically 'run a society' yet?

You also seem to be missing the broader point. You said women are useless with building civilisations, but all the problems you've identified are caused by men. FGM, oppressive clothing, terrorists; majority male-blame. If you can't acknowledge that, you're the one beating around the bush.

There's no contradiction between building civilisations and those brutal actions, indeed in some part that's my point. Building civilisations is in no small part a violent activity. You can't get there without that level of competition and it's not at all suited to women as they are generally much more inclined towards accommodation.

Females in pretty much all evolved species adopt a similar role. Sure, the female mantis eats her mate but in all mammals it's pretty much the same.

I'm not saying one is good or bad, or right or wrong, I'm just stating facts. It's neither misogynist or misandrist, just rational.

And you're not being harsh, that's not your style, and you know me well enough to know it doesn't bother me either. And I know you're a guy too.

bogbrush wrote:There's no contradiction between building civilisations and those brutal actions, indeed in some part that's my point. Building civilisations is in no small part a violent activity. You can't get there without that level of competition and it's not at all suited to women as they are generally much more inclined towards accommodation.

Females in pretty much all evolved species adopt a similar role. Sure, the female mantis eats her mate but in all mammals it's pretty much the same.

I agree that throughout history, to take power and control physical strength was needed, so men had an advantage there.

But perhaps our species specifically, and in particular our species at this point in time, can be different. We don't need physical strength as much nowadays in wars over power.  
And women are slowly across the world, especially in the west, getting much closer to equal rights. The formula in the past for building civilisations historically among humans, or other species, is now less relevant than ever.

bogbrush wrote:I'm not saying one is good or bad, or right or wrong, I'm just stating facts. It's neither misogynist or misandrist, just rational.

I just don't understand how you identified problems that males are mostly responsible for, and then managed to turn your ire to women specifically.
You said western feminists wanted to wreck society, something you didn't provide any evidence for. Assuming the most malicious possible intent of an opposite view is an indicator you don't understand others' mindset.

bogbrush wrote:
And you're not being harsh, that's not your style, and you know me well enough to know it doesn't bother me either.

I have no ire towards women per we, not at all. Women are great. They're just crap at creating civilisations. And sport too.

Those formulae aren't changing, they can't. More likely is that the feminisation of Western society renders it vulnerable to conquest.

Women aren't the wreckers. The leftards who hate the West and use the tactics of cultural Marxism to undermine it are the ones I detest. And that includes most of the third wave feminist movement, who I especially despise for their hypocrisy and collusion in the abuse of women.

I do think in this thread you were specifically turning your criticism on women rather than leftists in general.

bogbrush wrote:"I've heard it said that if society had always been ruled by women we'd still be in mud huts."

Back up this point-
1/ Is this your belief?
2/ Do you think I'm being unfair if I call you sexist and misogynistic if it is so?
3/ I can understand that in the past physical strength was needed for wars, needed for power. But in our modern world of IT and nukes, this is less relevant. Soldiers are pawns of leaders, and aren't really decisive.
So do you still think that if let's say the majority of parliament and leadership were women, we would suffer as a consequence than a make up where men are the majority?

He is a cuck, grown up without a father, with strong mother, who chose his wife and they both milk him of money.

Woman should take care of their man, make kids, support the family.

Been ok this way for thousands of years, since monkey times, don't know who invented this fake GirlPower shit, and ruined the society, even ladies themselves are not happy, always bitching 

DECIMA wrote:I do think in this thread you were specifically turning your criticism on women rather than leftists in general.

bogbrush wrote:"I've heard it said that if society had always been ruled by women we'd still be in mud huts."

Back up this point-
1/ Is this your belief?  
2/ Do you think I'm being unfair if I call you sexist and misogynistic if it is so?
3/ I can understand that in the past physical strength was needed for wars, needed for power. But in our modern world of IT and nukes, this is less relevant. Soldiers are pawns of leaders, and aren't really decisive.
So do you still think that if let's say the majority of parliament and leadership were women, we would suffer as a consequence than a make up where men are the majority?

That is NOT a criticism of women. I think you're mistaken in that you're not getting my point.

We are talking about instinct and motivation, not buttons or missiles.

The make up of Parliament is incidental to the feminisation of society. You watch, a feminised civilisation will not survive in a competitive World, and it certainly would never come into existence on that basis.

bogbrush wrote:
The make up of Parliament is incidental to the feminisation of society. You watch, a feminised civilisation will not survive in a competitive World, and it certainly would never come into existence on that basis.

But why?
Give some concrete reasons.

In the olden days you could say, physical strength was needed to invade, so men had the advantage and were at the forefront. Now that's not the case. So why can't women play a 5050 role in leadership of society now?

Jahu wrote:Woman should take care of their man, make kids, support the family.

Been ok this way for thousands of years, since monkey times, don't know who invented this fake GirlPower shit, and ruined the society, even ladies themselves are not happy, always bitching 

See, these sorts of opinions is exactly why feminism is still needed in Europe and across the West.

Of course, how we are going to breed, without saying a few good words of equality to ladies, to get them in bed?

I can't stand ramming agenda down people's throats like this:

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/09/battle-sexes-emma-stone-billie-jean-king-september-release/69385/

DECIMA wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
The make up of Parliament is incidental to the feminisation of society. You watch, a feminised civilisation will not survive in a competitive World, and it certainly would never come into existence on that basis.

But why?
Give some concrete reasons.

In the olden days you could say, physical strength was needed to invade, so men had the advantage and were at the forefront. Now that's not the case. So why can't women play a 5050 role in leadership of society now?

Because he isn't talking a 50/50 split. He is talking 100% women leadership. Hence why his belief a female led race would not be as nearly effective as a male one.

Leaders still have advisers and I can imagine there are some really decent female advisers out there as well as men who advise male and female leaders.

I've been following this thread and my understanding (BB can correct me if I am wrong) is his position is that the make up of women compared with men with their instincts being less intense than the male counterpart would result in decision making on extreme matters being heavily influenced by compassion and emotion.

For example take when a woman gives birth to a child and the range of emotions they experience after the event. You are talking about PND and other wide ranging disorders that might result from swings in hormones. I always recall my brother after the birth of his first child telling me he never understood his wife's emotions or thoughts and how the birth of their first child felt different for both. That doesn't make him a bad husband or father, he was simply expressing how he didn't understand why he felt different compared to his wife. Long after the birth my brother went into the role of father and moved past the wave of emotions with the birth of a child and settled back into most of the routine he had prior to the birth. His wife it took longer to adjust to life after the event and emotion fallout from it. I can't say I understand it and that it is only truly something a woman can experience and feel no matter how much they could articulate those feelings and emotions, I still wouldn't get close to understanding it. That is the closest I can come to trying to offer a paradox to what BB is saying. We are wired in different ways and for that reason alone, men and women could never feel or think the same or act in the same way.

We must refuse to be drawn into these meaningless media induced & encouraged "wars".

They are just trying to manipulate and weaken us until we become putty in their hands.

Divide and conquer:

Left vs Right
Young vs Old
Men vs Women
Mosquitos vs Flies....