top 100 commentsshow all 111

[–]takeyourjoyjohn 58 insightful - 2 fun58 insightful - 1 fun59 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

As a woman, I strongly disagree with the transgender shit. Here's my reasoning. (holy shit I can say this without a ban!)

A man wanting to become a woman only wants the beauty of being a woman. He doesn't want the menstrual bullshit.. The roller coaster of emotions, the pain of bearing children.. No he wants to be able to be accepted for wearing dresses and makeup and YASSSSS gurl accent. He wants to perpetuate the female stereotype, all while screaming "ThErES nO gEnDeR!"

Being a woman isn't all grace, beauty, fashion...it's pain, suffering and confusion...its just being human is what I'm getting at. You're not a woman by cutting off your dick or by putting on a dress and being good at blending your makeup. That stuff doesn't make a woman. Those are stereotypes.

Tell me how you feel like a woman? What does that even mean? The only time I'm reminded that I am a woman is when my female organs start yelling at me and stabbing me from within.

By wanting to be the other gender, you're just admitting that gender stereotypes are true for you.

Is this line of thinking sound? I'd like some feedback honestly. Especially from an opposing side so I can discuss it.

[–]Current_Year_Acct 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's perfectly sound. That's why you've been banned from reddit. Welcome.

[–]takeyourjoyjohn 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you for the warm welcome. I wish this world would allow non-heated debates over sensitive subjects, because then we all might actually learn something from one another and go somewhere with it.

Currently it all feels like a race to find out who's right and who's wrong. But I've always found it interesting to, instead, discuss these kinds of hot button topics with anyone who strongly opposes me, because I believe knowing both sides of the equation can really strengthen your foundation. This strong foundation, in turn, allows you to succeed in getting your point across in future debates and allows you to sound educated.

All I see now are groups staying within their comfort zones of ideas. I've always felt that if there isn't at least one thing about "your side" that you inherently disagree with, you're not being challenged. You're not learning anything. You're not growing. This is my reasoning behind why I love discussing with people who oppose me.

But people hinder you from learning anymore these days because if you disagree with even a tiny mechanism of the larger machine, you're automatically the enemy.

[–]Marou 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All I see now are groups staying within their comfort zones of ideas. I've always felt that if there isn't at least one thing about "your side" that you inherently disagree with, you're not being challenged. You're not learning anything. You're not growing. This is my reasoning behind why I love discussing with people who oppose me.

Beyond that, censorship keeps loads of very pertinent questions and facts out of the discourse almost entirely.

Like you, I love arguing with people who hold different opinions. I've been doing it since the Usenet days. If you want to ensure the foundations of your belief system are sound - expose it to scrutiny, and examine opposing opinions and contradicting evidence without egotism. It's hard to do, but worth the effort - and definitely fun with the right mindset.

[–]SaidOverRed 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You have pointed out the obvious contradiction that millions of others have. You can't change into something (another gender) if it doesn't exist (gender itself). Keep looking and you will find the exact same kinds of contradictions all over leftist dogma. That's why the honest ones just say 'screw it' and run a race to the bottom to starve/murder any who resist anything Leftism happens to be pushing for. 20th century history was a sad story. But don't worry; once all the 19th century statues are gone they can start covering up the gulags too...

[–]Anonimouse 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that might be why the discourse went from "gender and sex are different, trans males identify as women" to "sex is a spectrum, barely exists, gender is everything and trans women = female"

[–]Whoscapes 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A man wanting to become a woman only wants the beauty of being a woman.

I'd sharpen this point to instead be something like: "A man who wants to be treated as a woman can never experience the physical, bodily reality of being a woman - only the superficial".

But look, the whole thing is frankly besides the point. There are women who feel the way you do and you deserve a space to talk with one another in a fashion you see fit. It's freedom of association and freedom of speech. You are denied the former in many legal contexts and the latter on many social media platforms.

I don't consider myself a feminist for a few reasons but fuck people who want to stop you from having conversations.

[–]takeyourjoyjohn 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I really appreciate your input. Conversations like these allow me to grow as an individual and see other perspectives.

And you're right, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a platform to discuss "harsh" opinions without a witch hunt ensuing. So nowadays I always feel obligated to thank someone with whom I've had a rational discussion with.

[–]Whoscapes 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks and I feel the same way. I love reading all kinds of ideological books and ideas because it helps me figure out what I think by seeing what I oppose. Even with GC stuff as a dude I would sometimes flick through the sub to know the terminology just because I find it interesting - if it matters to other people then it probably has something worth at least glancing over.

I have two older sisters who I love dearly so I always found it a bit stinging seeing unfairly negative sentiment towards guys on fem subs but I get it's mostly blowing off steam or the consequence of bad experiences. Lord knows there are male spaces which do it as bad and worse, especially in pornographic context which is just disturbing.

[–]copenseethe 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They do not understand that a big part of feeling like a woman is fearing male violence. Every woman over the age of 20 has experienced some form of physical assault by a man. We don't cruise through the world in a body that is as strong as a man's. We know that in a contest of strength we will not prevail and we order our lives accordingly.

[–]AntiLowEffortHuman 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Once upon a time, this would have made a good post for murderedbywords. Before they murdered themselves, that is. Awesome write up, I agree with every point.

[–]Diddle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By wanting to be the other gender, you're just admitting that gender stereotypes are true for you.

I've always held that belief. That's why I think the divide between "gender" and "sex" was a subversion of norms. It was an excuse to blur the lines of sex. There's nothing wrong with liking different gendered topics or even presenting yourself as a man or a woman, but it doesn't mean you are. Its a part of you, no matter what you believe or deny. Same with your height, age, race, ect. I have plenty of problems with the sun as a ginger, but it doesn't mean I won't get burned going outside if I identified as black.

It feels like an emperor's new clothes situation on a societal level.

[–]apoliticalinactivist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you're conflating trans people with drag queens & cross dressers, but your broader reasoning is why there is strong distinction between sex and gender in the trans community.

Trans people know they aren't ever going to be biologically the same, but it's not about the sex, it's about the gender and feeling a certain way. Yes, they present themselves as a collection of traits which you may call stereotypes, but how is that different from any other human? We choose how we act and express ourselves. Your femininity is expressed one way and their vision of femininity is another, but just like how you wouldn't hate or condemn a goth/hysterictomy'd/childfree/etc woman for expressing their femininity their way, why not let trans people do the same? Them being who they are doesn't really affect biological women any more than any other subset of women would.

Also like other subgroup, there are attention seekers drawn to the label and go overboard with the pronouns, etc., but just ignore them as you would any other attention seeker.

[–]King_Brutus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can get behind this. I do think that gender dysphoria is a mental illness (not in a derogatory way) but that it deserves professional treatment and therapy, and that the ACTUAL number of people who should transition should be incredibly rare because it's so often regretted and is more of a trend now because someone said "I wish I had boobs" once or felt feminine for a month.

I don't think it's unreasonable though for diagnosed gender dysphorics who go through a transition should be respected as humans though, but I also don't think it's unfair to say that they aren't actually women and that shouldn't be treated as hate speech.

[–]Dolphinman360 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. You can also now say it while still getting 100+ points on the side as a bonus!

[–]Delia 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with everything you wrote.

[–]NiceDickBro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not a woman but beautifully well said.

[–]Haunter 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's all about the pickle jar, baby. On days when you can open the pickle jar, you're a man. On days when you can't, you're a woman. Gametes got nothing to do with it.

[–]takeyourjoyjohn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What about pickled cauliflower jars? I'm really good at opening those. Fuck. Am I a man?

[–]Wrang1er 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Women are the majority of the population, thats why reddit targeted them.

[–]Godess 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sure thing dawg

[–]sensusquaeram 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes -- but they're also a legal protected class in the US (where Reddit is based). They really screwed up there.

[–]FlippyKing 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Welcome!

I left upon seeing all the GC subs get banned (some are private it seems, but might end up banned too I guess). I'm a dude, and was in GC Guys, and they haven't banned that sub yet. But I'm out of there. Staying there breaks my sense of being in solidarity. Maybe I should have kept my account active and just trolled till I got banned, but I'd rather see Reddit turn into a ghost town, or a sausage-in-skirt party I guess.

[–]adam13magic 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Amazing how the same people who say "follow the science" deny it over someone's feelings. As Reddit dies let us examine what is left to avoid the mistakes it [readdit] made. I want this site to be what the internet was in the early 2000s. Wild west there is a community for everyone and you won't get ban for having the wrong/ unpopular opinions.

[–]THEUGLY0RGAN 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think the fallout of reddit shitting the bed is going to bring us back to the early internet age. I feel like the main reason it became so hivemind and corporate is due to the sheer size. I'm willing to bet everyone splintering into 5+ different popular image boards will help keep populations relatively small and keep those early 00's characteristics.

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

Awww, I thought you might go real old school with UseNet. I mean, who doesn't want to have a flame war on alt.plagues.COVID.masks?

[–]Haunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Akshully, now that you mention it...

[–]Dolphinman360 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think that we need to do that. One of the most important things we need to avoid is just echoing our ideas off those who agree with us. We NEED to keep subs from isolating, because thats going to become an issue. It's important we prevent gendercritical from outcasting itself on Saidit, and let people talk and debate there, not just have an echo chamber.

[–]crazedchef90395 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I do not care. You do you, EVERYONE should be able to do that.

I'm a hetero, Christian, White, male who IS SICK OF AMERICA RIGHT NOW!

We are openly hated on everywhere. The world is really not a bad place, but the media constantly barrages everyone that it is.

Sooooo many Karen's, "Wear your mask, stay home, stay safe."

Fuck em all.

2020 is a shit show, everything is about ONE thing, the election coming up in November.

People are losing sight of that.

I really do not care what anyone does with their life, I guess I am a majority libertarian. Live & let live.

[–]pcpmasterrace 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Elections don't matter, but the system relies on convincing you that they do.

[–]Aureus 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everyone should vote, but everyone should also organize, be involved in their community, and try to contribute to the culture.

[–]Jesus-Christ 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (8 children)

Nobody is trying to erase you.

[–]nonpenishaver 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You're right, nobody is "trying" to erase us. They literally did erase us. A sub of 65,000 women. Lol.

[–]Jesus-Christ 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

The same can be said for anyone who's community revolves around a certain type of people though, lots of subs have been removed that have been predominately male but that doesn't mean they're trying to "erase men". I don't support Reddit and have hated it for a good couple of years but it's pretty ridiculous to assume that the site's trying to "erase women" when there are still plenty of subs that are predominately female. I don't disagree that Reddit has an agenda but I don't think trying to erase all women is one of them.

[–]coin_boi 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Can you agree that they are trying to erase a particular type of woman? or women that aren't buying into the narrative they want them adhering to?

[–]Jesus-Christ 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think they're being specifically targeted just for being women, the arguement that they were banned for not buying into the narrative would make more sense to me as opposed to, "they're banning us because we're female". I believe Reddit is removing a particular type of people in general.

[–]slushpilot 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

r/GenderCritical was specifically the one place on Reddit where the fact that "sex is real" and "woman = adult human female" was openly promoted as a basis for understanding reality. If those facts can no longer be acknowledged on Reddit as simply and directly as that, then I don't think it's hyperbolic to call it "erasing women".

Yes, there were male-populated subreddits removed too. But I don't know of any that were specifically speaking to existence as a male in society and critiquing the law & culture around that. Maybe you know of some niche sub I'm unaware of, but r/GenderCritical was a flagship community.

[–]Trajan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They kind of messing with the definition, which could be termed ‘erasure’. The thing is, feminists made this problem. They were in at the ground floor of identity politics. Although not all feminists are intersectionalists, all significant intersectionality thinkers are/were feminists. The social constructionist argument, so essential to feminism, is what lead to the idea that men can become women.

[–]Delia 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Feminist since 1972, this is what I fought for equal pay, rape crisis centre, women's refuges, more women in govt, maternity care, reproductive rights, disability rights, sex orientation rights..gender is a word I never use, I say male or female sex. Apart from the fact that transexuals needed human rights protection, it is an area I as a reform feminist, had little to do with not being transexual. Reform feminists worked with govt to change legislation in regard to women's rights which was successful.I would also like to add something, women are not responsible for all the issues in the world, eg we are not wholly responsible for gender identity. Men and women created our world. So please do not dump it on us, thank you.

[–]Trajan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I will apply that to anybody who identifies with the label. That some feminists aren’t on the social constructionist Marxist-inspired bus doesn’t erase the ideology’s evidenced role in the identity-driven tribalism we see today.

Clearly feminism is no more homogenous than socialism, yet there is a shared set of beliefs. Use the label, carry the baggage.

[–]Scammerovich 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Welcome, I may disagree with you a lot, but you should still be allowed here

[–]hylia[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you! Maybe one day I’ll be convinced haha i just need to read more on both sides

[–]Talmudstein 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (47 children)

I have a question for you, considering you accept one biological reality that men cannot be women and vice-versa, do you accept other myths your ideology believes? Do you believe the gender pay gap myth? Or that women can do anything a man can do but better? Or that sexual "liberation" (aka subversion by astroturfed 'scholars' from a certain Middle Eastern tribe, especially in the 1960s) is beneficial to women?

[–]hylia[S] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Well... I guess I’m a bit different? I don’t believe in the gender pay gap. That “gap” exists from what women choose to work. It’s an average across the board rather than a comparison to exact careers. I do believe women can do some things better but men can do certain things better than us! Sexual liberation is something quite grotesque to me. I don’t believe it’s mentally healthy for anyone to reduced the intimacy of sex into something like “masturbation but with extra steps”.

Those are my personal beliefs however i will support any woman who makes any sound decision with good intentions.

[–]Marou 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (33 children)

You seem pretty sane, no offense meant. The thing I hate most about feminism is that it discourages women from being mothers and housewives. They shouldn't be forced to be those things, but for many their instincts will desire it. To be the center of a home and family, to have children and educate them - to be the rock that her husband leans on.

Feminism has ever been full of propaganda that any lifestyle other than acting like a wage slave is bad, and of course this makes sense when you look at who financed the movements and what their objectives were... Funnier is that they've brainwashed many women to think that corporate ladders and employment position mean something. They certainly don't to men, especially not in mate selection.

This has dropped fertility rates below replacement levels, and doomed our current form of western civilization to death within our lifetimes. Biology cares about successful reproduction, and that's it. Civilizations live and die by their fertility and assimilation rates.

[–]radfem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

So if you dislike feminism just for discouraging women from being wives and mothers... How do you feel about broader societal trends that funnel and pressure them directly into it?

[–]Marou 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

How do you feel about broader societal trends that funnel and pressure them directly into it?

Such as? Show me just one mainstream commercial or propaganda piece trying to convince women to be housewives or stay at home moms. Restriction: Must be within the past 30 years and must be in a Western country. If you can find me even one I'll be impressed, I can provide thousands of counter-examples.

/edit: Outside of propaganda, depressed wages resulting from a doubling of the labor supply have created strong societal pressures for women to work, as the majority of men are no longer able to earn enough alone to support a family. Many families these days either can't afford the luxury of a single income home, or are unwilling to compromise their materialistic lifestyles to achieve it.

[–]radfem 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I never said women aren't required to now work outside the home.

I said women are pressured by broader societal trends to be wives and mothers. Which is why feminism pushes back against that norm.

But please if you'd like, feel free to show me social prop discouraging women from marrying and producing children. I'd really love to see it.

Also... you freely acknowledge that most men cannot afford to have their wives stay at home regardless, is that because of feminism too or do you think predator capitalism might have something to do with it?

[–]Marou 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

I said women are pressured by broader societal trends to be wives and mothers. Which is why feminism pushes back against that norm.

Ok, show or name them.

But please if you like it, feel free to show me social prop discouraging women from marrying and producing children. I'd really love to see it.

Ok, for the sake of brevity I'll limit myself to some recent entries.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/culture/article/You-don-t-want-to-bring-a-baby-into-a-world-14487515.php

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/children-climate-change-reproduction-conceivable-future-birthstrike_n_5d134d63e4b0aa375f564d27

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/03/26/climate-change-war-famine-drought-makes-women-not-want-children/3099448002/

https://www.mic.com/articles/114040/for-young-women-not-having-children-has-become-the-rational-decision

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/is-it-okay-to-have-children-in-a-time-of-climate-chaos-1.4258290

I can keep going and going, but I'm sure none of this is hitting you outta left field. You've probably seen and heard it's like over and over through the years: perhaps not seeing it for what it is. The biggest obstacle to replacement levels of children seems to be statistically be, educational attainment. The bitch of biology is, it doesn't care why you're not having kids. You're dying out if you're below replacement level. This breeding that is still occurring above replacement level, which the exception of those on the very conservative end of the political spectrum, is very dysgenic.

The left tries to act like humanity is above biology and you can't breed better or worse humans. This is demonstrably wrong, intelligence especially is extremely heritable. To the degree that if you've sequenced your genes, you can conduct a "genetic IQ" test, that is as accurate as the administered ones. Maybe intelligence is a negative trait evolution is correcting for? That's certainly been the effect evidencing itself for the past 70 years. We've been - through welfare programs, encouraging our stupidest and most violent to breed like rabbits - while talking ourselves into having less kids later (higher chances of defects and failure). This has had disastrous effects within only a few generations. The average IQ in Baltimore right now is below 80.

I refuse to give up what we've achieved so easily. I'm not naive enough to think humans above the rules of biology. If we don't collectively sort our shit out and fast, evolution will march on. Natural selection only cares about reproductive success and survival. Our inflated IQ's will be left in fossil territory if we don't buckle up. If we want to have a future that's not a dystopian hellhole we should be encouraging the smartest and healthiest among us to have loads of children while they are young; and discourage our weakest and stupidest from having them at all.

The life stages for women should not mirror those of men. Men are education --> education --> career --> children --> death

A much more healthy pattern for the success of the species would look like this for women. education --> children --> education --> career --> death

Feminism's desire to transform women into men has caused this. A bright 17 year old girl who says, "I want to get married and have children next year, after High School" would have almost all aspects of society and school telling them they are "throwing their life away". Obviously, I'd tell them - "That's fantastic, good luck with motherhood!". That is not what feminists would tell them.

[–]radfem 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

So women are discouraged from having children because it's financially disastrous and the planet is literally dying but... that's just feminists discouraging women from pursuing their natural motherly drives because they want women to be like men? Not seeing the connection. Meanwhile whos fault is it that it's financially disastrous to have children and that the planet is dying? That feminists too or do you think male CEOs, politicians and policy makers should take some credit here as well?

Ps considering the landscape you yourself have described wouldn't that 17 year old be better off working in earth sciences trying to correct some of our current climate issues or should she leave that to the males?

Pps if you're so worried about population why don't you or any of your like minded brothers ever take the initiative to stay home and raise children? Or support men who do?

[–]Marou 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

So women are discouraged from having children because it's financially disastrous and the planet is literally dying but... that's just feminists discouraging women from pursuing their natural motherly drives because they want women to be like men?

The planet dying is...overrated. If we really wanted to fix pollution issues we'd cut off the two primary sources of pollution, Africa and China. However, those are only ever mentioned in passing when we talk about solving the earth's problems. It's only White western people that need to make changes. By the same token, it's always White western women that are propagandized not to have more children. I assure you the jewish women writing these articles would self identify as feminists.

Not seeing the connection. Meanwhile whos fault is it that it's financially disastrous to have children and that the planet is dying? That feminists too or do you think male CEOs, politicians and policy makers should take some credit here as well?

Heh, who do you think funds Feminism? It's largely not women.

Pps if you're so worried about population why don't you or any of your like minded brothers ever take the initiative to stay home and raise children? Or support men who do?

I suppose I shouldn't be worried. As I said, only those classifying themselves as "extremely right wing" are above replacement rate. That includes people like me and my family. We've done our part.

Even though I think many of you are misguided, I don't necessarily think the world will be better off when your lot has died out. I do enjoy conversations outside of my normal circles.

[–]radfem 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

You didn't answer the question though...

In those articles why are women being told not to have children?

[–]Futon_Everlasting 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's very active parts of radical feminism looking at the social factors that discourage women from choosing motherhood or from being able to do it safely (health outcomes, not getting fired from jobs). A lot of radical feminist discussion is about women's role in perpetuation of the species. Can we make it less risky? Less miserable? Can we set up systems that encourage those wanting to be mothers to do it well and those same systems don't pressure women who don't want to be mothers away from other life work? What makes for a healthy family? What family systems support a healthy society? What do alternatives look like? How do we mitigate relationship risks? At least, those are the conversations I've followed.

[–]Marou 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

These are all questions worth pursuing answers for. I don't think these questions can best be addressed in an echo chamber.

What makes for a healthy family?

Positive male and female role models that are present and don't abrogate the responsibility for raising their children to the state - would be my opinion.

What family systems support a healthy society?

The nuclear family structure supports a healthy society. Research has strongly shown that what I described above results in optimum outcomes for the success of children and the happiness and health of the parents. Especially into old age, wherein they have people willing to take care of them. Young men that have no options for relationships get into all sorts of trouble. The modern "hookup" culture that has arisen is terrible for both men and women.

What do alternatives look like?

Cancer in my experience, but I'd love to hear some of the things you've heard discussed.

How do we mitigate relationship risks?

If you don't mind, expand on this. Do you mean where one of the partners is abusive? We definitely have flawed systems set up to address those issues. Men often get run over in divorce and custody proceedings but the whole thing is damn uneven and fucked up. From a woman sleeping around and taking everything a man owns, to a man abusing his wife and children for years and getting away with it. These flaws are more systemic to our corrupt justice system though, than they are specific to family court.

[–]Futon_Everlasting 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

LOL, we'll be lucky if these questions are systematically addressed anywhere. Final answers require people having plenty of time to explore issues in smaller settings where they can feel their voices are heard. And a whole lot of research.

Positive male and female role models is insufficient by itself for a healthy family. A healthy family has got to have so much more. You need role models to consistently demonstrate good emotional skills on the part of both sexes (looking at American history I'm not sure this ever happened on a mass scale - our history is full of families broken by alcohol, violence, and bad choices). You need adequate management of physical and mental health (problems will arise - best to plan for it and insurance only deals with the financial aspects). You need adequate caregivers (placing 100% of this role on one person is exhausting to the person). More than ever I'm certain children need way more than two responsible, caring adults in their lives and to see them with high frequency. Studies looking at post-birth maternal health (post-partum depression IIRC, but maybe also how the birth went) are finding that extended family structures are healthier for women than nuclear family structures. Before the mid-20th century nuclear family structures were rare in the US (and elsewhere). "The Feminine Mystique" is basically an expose of the isolating, crazy-making aspects of the nuclear family combined with suburban development and strict gender role enforcement. Prior to that mothers had significantly more support and more diverse (and challenging) contributions to the household.

So that's one alternative I think deserves better exploration. And that leads me to mitigating risks. Yes, I'm largely thinking of abuse (from any of the responsible adults). My family blew itself up in pretty fantastic style, but the emotional problems were compounding well before the breakup, and seem to have been multigenerational. The breakup was the beginning of healing. So can we support families in better emotional management? Can we interrupt abusive cascading behavior? Here's an article I found that suggests we can without breaking families up: How High Point, N.C., Solved Its Domestic Violence Problem.

The other risk mitigation and family structure thought I've had is - so your interventions could not prevent family breakup? Can you recombine broken families into larger groups of unrelated adults willing to be responsible for each others' children? Does it help if you contribute to mutual finances? This is an idea I've seen women talk about, but never seen any writeup of anyone trying it out and how it's gone.

[–]Marou 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL, we'll be lucky if these questions are systematically addressed anywhere. Final answers require people having plenty of time to explore issues in smaller settings where they can feel their voices are heard. And a whole lot of research.

I think the issues need to be culturally addressed rather than legally. People are pretty inventive and the government usually makes social problems worse, not better.

You need role models to consistently demonstrate good emotional skills on the part of both sexes (looking at American history I'm not sure this ever happened on a mass scale - our history is full of families broken by alcohol, violence, and bad choices). You need adequate management of physical and mental health (problems will arise - best to plan for it and insurance only deals with the financial aspects). You need adequate caregivers (placing 100% of this role on one person is exhausting to the person). More than ever I'm certain children need way more than two responsible, caring adults in their lives and to see them with high frequency.

I don't disagree with a thing you've said, but you've basically laid out my definition of "positive role models" in a very verbose fashion. I enjoyed reading it.

Studies looking at post-birth maternal health (post-partum depression IIRC, but maybe also how the birth went) are finding that extended family structures are healthier for women than nuclear family structures. Before the mid-20th century nuclear family structures were rare in the US (and elsewhere). "The Feminine Mystique" is basically an expose of the isolating, crazy-making aspects of the nuclear family combined with suburban development and strict gender role enforcement. Prior to that mothers had significantly more support and more diverse (and challenging) contributions to the household.

In the old days, people didn't move far from home. So, you had a nuclear family (mother, father, kids) in a house that was probably adjacent to or within walking distance of other family. In addition, since old fashioned agrarian lifestyles required lots of community cooperation in many respects the kids were raised by their parents in cooperation with kin, grandparents, and other members of the community.

Much of the comparatively less fulfilling modern life and less stable nuclear family can be laid at the feet of Techno-Industrial society and innovations that have made our lives easier, but also far less fulfilling. I don't think any laws can help this situation - only dedicated lifestyle changes by people. Idle hands are the devil's playground, and people given everything on a silver platter are never happy.

https://www.victorpest.com/articles/what-humans-can-learn-from-calhouns-rodent-utopia

Don't want to go all Unabomber on you, but read his manifesto. His critique of the human misery caused by Techno-Industrial society is spot on, and has many ramifications in regards to the current problems facing families.

So that's one alternative I think deserves better exploration. And that leads me to mitigating risks. Yes, I'm largely thinking of abuse (from any of the responsible adults). My family blew itself up in pretty fantastic style, but the emotional problems were compounding well before the breakup, and seem to have been multigenerational. The breakup was the beginning of healing. So can we support families in better emotional management? Can we interrupt abusive cascading behavior? Here's an article I found that suggests we can without breaking families up: How High Point, N.C., Solved Its Domestic Violence Problem.

I'm usually not fond of solutions that rely upon state force to solve social problems. Largely because all states inevitably end up, sooner or later - corrupt. Ours is certainly well into that territory.

The other risk mitigation and family structure thought I've had is - so your interventions could not prevent family breakup? Can you recombine broken families into larger groups of unrelated adults willing to be responsible for each others' children? Does it help if you contribute to mutual finances? This is an idea I've seen women talk about, but never seen any writeup of anyone trying it out and how it's gone.

It's a thought, and you might be able to achieve it with a close circle of very good friends; but probably not. Human nature is not caring about other people's children nearly as much as you do your own. Then of course, are the systemic risks. I'm actually terrified of other people's children, and refuse to be alone with any of them. Too easy for a man these days to be accused of inappropriate behavior, and if that happens to you, the burden is on you to prove your own innocence. In the interest of protecting women and children the application of the law has gone from "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" to "Guilty until Proven Innocent" and mounting any sort of defense is incredibly costly. Our legal system is based on money, not justice. Have enough money and you can walk on murder, have none and piss off a prosecutor, you'll do hard time for jaywalking.

[–]radfem 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Explain how claims of a gender paygap ignores biological reality. Or sexual liberation for that matter. Or that women aren't inferior to men.

[–]Talmudstein 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Women aren't inferior to men, they're entirely different biological entities (relative to human species). As they say, "they contemplate each other". The differences between men and women at the biological and psychological level does mean that they are the same or can do the same thing. A woman isn't as strong as a man, a man isn't as social as a woman.

Sexual liberation ignores numerous realities about pair-bonding and the nature of human sexual relationships, leading to societal failures.

The GPG is indeed a myth, I never claim it was a biological one though. But it is highly related to the gender-based differences, there are numerous natural reasons why men get payed more on average (although not systematically, we are all payed same wage on base level). Actually in some industries, such as nurses, women are paid more on average than men.

[–]radfem 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Firstly pair bonding wasn't what made the first human tribes succesful. Women having multiple partners did. It ensured genetic diversity and ensured all men had an equal stake in all children.

Secondly if you mean compliment then yes somewhat, males and females evolved in compliment to each other. However that does not translate over to either specifically needing to be with the opposite sex to flourish, especially not today.

Thirdly there is a wage gap. And men in female dominated industries are treated preferentially, so no female nurses are not paid more than males.

Finally you said if you reject gender ideology based on biological reality... it implies you see a link between the two.

[–]Talmudstein 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

cringe and delusional

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Men who think the gender pay gap is a myth certainly are... but ya know I try not to judge them. They are very simple minded creatures.

[–]Talmudstein 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

i bet you have an onlyfans thot LOL

edit: btw here's proof of my claim https://www.workingmums.co.uk/top-10-roles-where-women-earn-more-than-men/

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Hey, edit head. Did you actually read the article, because it pretty much disproves your argument, despite the neat sounding title? Or were you just hoping I wouldn't read it?

PS. The article also confirms and talks about the female gender wap gap... so like... are you agreeing there's a female wage gap? Or did you just not read the article?

[–]Talmudstein 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Did you? It disproves your own point.

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Office for National Statistics estimates that across all roles surveyed, there was an average of 9.3% difference between men’s salaries and women’s salaries, with men earning this amount more than women per hour. That means for every £1 earned by a man, a woman earns 90.7 pence.

First paragraph.

[–]radfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I bet you I don't.

But also, if you think you're somehow clever or original for making fun of women for making a living... you are sadly mistaken sir. That started in about oh 4000BCE.

[–]passionateindiff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The data supports the gender pay gap. There are biological differences between men and women, resulting in men (on the whole) being better at sports and other physical activities. There are no significant cognitive differences between men and women. Women and men should be free to have sex with any consenting adult they please, but as part of that, we shouldn’t be promoting hookup culture since it does a disservice to both men and women who desire emotional attachment. Birth control should be free and accessible to both men and women.

[–]Talmudstein 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The "pay gap" exists on average of income earned considering all factors, not as a systematic effort where women aren't payed less on their wage. There are industries where women are payed more on average then men, I'm sure there's a "pay gap" between left-handed and right-handed people as well. It is mostly a non-issue and there are far greater labour issues than women being paid less on average due to not working overtime as much in certain industries.

There are cognitive differences, one (((Israeli))) study claims otherwise but that is the outlier not the norm. It has also received significant criticism itself.

Hookup culture, casual sex, etc are all the same thing, you contradict yourself. Hookup culture is inevitable property of post-sexual subversion society, you cannot have a liberalised sexuality without such decadence.

The money wasted on a bunch of degenerates could be much better spent on welfare for the poor. The amount wasted on the negative side effects of sexual liberalism costs us around 1.6 billion every year, with half of the population having STDs, much better to promote traditional gender roles. Making birth control free is just openly promoting citizenry to do such decadent activity.

[–]Andymiamio7o7 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Welcome exile, I'm new here as well. Thanks for the post. Agreed. Sorry to hear you were silenced. Gender confusion is a part of the destabilization process of subverting a culture towards socialism. Even Bill Nye is shilling for confusing people.

[–]Wrang1er 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I love TERF wars!

[–]copenseethe 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People that are old enough to remember the Soviet bloc are dying off. It was a cautionary tale for us about the value of our fundamental rights. It seems the US has a large portion of the population now that do not feel that freedom of speech is important and worth fighting for. reddit is a reflection of that. Populated by people too fragile to hear an opposing viewpoint. I am also happy to be here and to see everyone freely compete in the marketplace of ideas and opinions.

[–]Papitas 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm quite antifeminist myself, but I agree they aren't women and never could be. BUT they aren't men as well. They are... transexuals, I suppose.

Our lives and experiences are quite shaped by how we look, that's why we (men) could never quite fully understand women struggles and viceversa. That's why, aside obvious biological reasons, trans will never be real women.

Unlike most people, I actually pity them. They can't be real men, but they can't be real women (mind and body wise). And if they want to transition and actually get a vaginoplasty, they won't get a vagina, but a malformed hole that doesn't even look like a vagina.

And if they want to find love, tough shit... the heterosexuals they like don't reciprocate (gays usually have the same problem).

No wonder suicide rate is so high among them.

[–]Jayine 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well I suppose it's easy for you to pity them. They aren't the ones who took your reddit subs from you, issue death threats to you, take away rape shelters from you or force themselves into your bathrooms, prisons, gyms. And they don't physically harm you when you play sports against them, nor take away your scholarships and opportunities. Nor do they take away spots from you for medically necessary procedures simply for their cosmetic ones, or take spots from gynaecologists from you when they have no need to see them. And don't even get me started on the shit they force on to lesbians.

Pity? What a joke.

[–]Papitas 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Irl I've mostly met the kind of trans that only want to live and let live, but I agree that shit show from clown world is bullshit.

I'm a retired pro athlete and I find insulting that some fat dude with a wig competes (and wins) against some of the the best females the human species has to offer. If I remember correctly, there's some dude who literally looks like Thor playing handball against women and those idiots at wherever their sports commission is let him play and injure people so they won't be labelled as bigots.

Still, I don't consider them men and they are definitely not women. With so many trans nowadays, they should get their own sports leagues.

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I feel the same, and I think you're pretty much on the same page with the GC crowd.

Pointing these things out so people can question whether the grass isn't always greener is apparently "hateful" though. As if that's what is keeping people out of the exclusive club, and not reality itself.

[–]Papitas 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I feel the same, and I think you're pretty much on the same page with the GC crowd

Wasn't GC a sub for feminists or something? If so, this just demonstrates we all can have civil discussions because we may have shared opinions even if we have different life experiences.

Even though we are different, we are not SO DIFFERENT we could never understand each other. We are humans, after all.

[–]eth0 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are not 'TERF'. You're just sane.

[–]flowerskull21 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree! Let’s be TERFs together! I’m proud of believing in biology.

[–]teelo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

TERF logic:

How dare they try to erase women! Now we're going to create our own space where we try to erase men.

Do you not see the irony?

[–]hylia[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So I don’t believe in creating a space to erase men. I believe we should both have our separate places because we both battle different battles in society. I am upset that reddit removed such powerful messages from women however kept up MGTOW who is just as radical as a gender critical person.

I am not saying we should rid ourselves of the mgtow community! I believe it has helped many men find themselves and grow positively. I’m just saying there’s a bias.

[–]Sumkindafing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a psyop designed to break the female spirit and create more division between the sexes. People who disagree with biological fact are morons or paid to push that view. It was created by think tanks and is pushed by the occult societies.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]SteveHarvey 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Fuckin love this free speech brother!

    [–]deleted 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I sexually identify as an apache attack helicopter.

    I have no interest in what you call yourself it's none of my business and isn't anyone else's except yours. Welcome and Goodday!

    [–]Gunk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Cunt.

    [–]hylia[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Lol

    [–]kim4432 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    ya i agree, men cannot be women, and visa versa

    but the definition of a women is changing and will be upgraded to "modern women" and "traditional women"

    modern women might or might not have dicks

    and traditional women dont have dicks

    whatever u like it or not, thats simply the future, ur gonna have to tell ur sons to be careful around modern women, but with all the influence it might be hard

    [–]CASP3R 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I dont agree with the wage gap, but we agree on this. lol.Welcome.

    [–]hylia[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Hey! I don’t believe in the wage gap either. I just think women are more predisposed to staying at home or taking a lower paying career. The “gap” is just an average I think!

    Other less I read that and you believe in the wage gap but disagree with me haha either way thank you!