From Reddit

submitted by LisbonMuse from self.BlackPillFeminism

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BrownScholarship 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Saying most men are not oppressive is bad. As the oppressor, you have watch yourself on things perpetuate misogyny. Even I, may subject to misogyny. This means watching porn, passing a woman’s boundaries, and withholding the belief that she needs men to succeed. This is only a lick.

If you think men will also agree to feminism that is also bad. Their desires will obviously be limited. Will they respond to that so positively? Like many don’t subject themselves to anti feminist videos and accounts? Women need women. That’s what they need to overcome the patriarchy. The ability to speak doesn’t erase oppression. The ability to withhold higher positions doesn’t erase oppression. If women are intimidated by things of this subject then that would be an issue under the patriarchy or a manifestation under it.

The patriarchy gives voices to sex based violence and oppression. If you find that the patriarchy connects to something bigger than that, okay. But that still exists and gives voices to many. Comparing it won’t lessen it.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Saying most men are oppressive is bad and divisive. Keep saying it to keep starting fights.

A woman needs a man to succeed at having children. That is a biological fact. If she wants help raising that child she can keep or dispose of people as she sees fit, though stable relationships would be best for the child, and those relationships need not be romantically with a man as they may be another gender, family, friends, etc.

" If you think men will also agree to feminism that is also bad. "

1) This is poor grammar and I don't understand what you mean. 2) You're projecting as I never said that. 3) This makes your other points confusing and moot too.

The ability to speak freely is an ultimate equalizer. You get your say. I get mine. No one is above the other. There is no hierarchy or patriarchy. However if you feel intimidated or are threatened that changes things, something impossible to do in this forum. Censorship also profoundly changes things.

If you are intimidated by the prodigious prowess of my grand intellect that is another thing entirely. ;P

" The ability to withhold higher positions doesn’t erase oppression. If women are intimidated by things of this subject then that would be an issue under the patriarchy or a manifestation under it. "

I don't understand what you're saying here. Please expand clearly.

" The patriarchy gives voices to sex based violence and oppression. "

I don't understand what you're saying here. Please expand clearly.

" If you find that the patriarchy connects to something bigger than that, okay. But that still exists and gives voices to many. Comparing it won’t lessen it. "

My point is that taking down the "patriarchy" won't solve half the problems, if you even could, by whatever definition you want to make it. The "patriarchy" is a proxy-pseudo-enemy that is a shield for the true root of the problem from which all others stem from - the globalist Zionist corporatocracy who is manufacturing your war on the "patriarchy", just as it's manufacturing consent for the BLM riots, race divisions, trans agendas, etc etc etc - anything but actually attacking the ruling class puppet masters who don't give a flying fuck about BLM, SJWs, or any of these other issues - including feminism. How many women are at the top of the pyramid? There are VERY FEW women who are actually in the Council On Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Council, Bank Of International Settlements, the Bilderberg meetings, etc. Strike there and things might change.

[–]BrownScholarship 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That divisive mere statement gives light to the oppression women face at the hands of men and that is a historical fact.

Women needing a man to make a baby is a biological fact. I had meant in areas that can be considered social.

The ability to speak freely is a human right, that still doesn’t undermine oppression and microaggressions that women face for doing so.

What I had meant is that if men are going “rise” with us in overthrowing the patriarchy and come together, then they must be up to par with feminism. But will they risk that? Will they risk their own desires as feminists critique? The reason I am projecting is that these are very popular factors that many commit. Are you up to par with withholding that for female liberation?

Patriarchy helps put the issue of sex based violence and oppression for women into light, and it also doesn’t exclude how it affects men and our roles in society. If you see something more bigger than that, okay, but the patriarchy is a label that may just be an extension of that.

Are you opposed to BLM?

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Your grammar is confusing.

Men are oppressed by women and society too. And children are too. We all face microaggressions. I get microaggressions from my male neighbour, and I'm male, so who's the patriarchy? It's all part of life. Don't be a victim. It wins you nothing.

I would agree to be on par with a rational feminism (not the CIA engineered 2nd to 4th waves). I would hope you would too. There are nutjob feminists just as there are nutjob MGTOW and Incels. I would LOVE to see rational people, feminists and men's rights and children's rights folks find their common ground, put aside their differences for a bit, and unify for common goals against the oppressive media, government, industry, banks, academia, etc. - the corporatocracy.

I will never give up my right to critique (not just against women but men and other tribes and groups, not just the bad but also critically analyse the good to learn from it and maybe improve it), but I will also be happy to collaborate for a common good.

I don't understand why I must "withhold" or why anyone should be denied anything.

Time to move off dwelling on sex-based violence. I have NEVER hit a woman, but I've had many take that liberty on me. Violence is a relationship killer in my book. Domestic violence is 60% 40% yet men don't have shelters. Why? That's not a patriarchy. That the manipulation of the masses by the ruling class.

I am opposed to SJWs and BLM because they have been weaponized by the ruling class' corporatocracy from originally being based on good intentions. I am all in favour of social justice and for Black lives to matter, as well as all others, though I certainly will recognize that Black people have had a terribly rough time through history for many reasons. From Jewish slave masters to Southern oppression to the terrible things unleashed by the Clinton presidency to the engineered crashes of 2008 and 2020. There is good reason for them to be upset, but there is no good reason to commit crimes when they could be more effectively organizing with ACTUAL proper demands - but the corporatocracy won't allow that.