you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]joeytundra 38 insightful - 2 fun38 insightful - 1 fun39 insightful - 2 fun -  (29 children)

After reading some of your other comments how you think women are some of the most coddled people on the planet..I can see why you were banned. Clearly women aren't coddled and protected if all men have to do is declare they identify as women and demand women allow any man into spaces and change her language so she's not allowed to talk about her own biology. It's us men that are the most protected. You are acting very entitled. Saidit like Reddit have their own subs. If you come in acting like women have it made when they don't and are under attack, you've been in too many MRA circles online and watching too much porn. We need to wake up to what's really going on here. Why are there many different circles online filled with contempt towards women and to the point where random women have been murdered by 8chan and 4 chan members after getting their dose of validation for hating women and porn ads all over the place? We're being lied to by a bunch of groomers. Why is a gay male involved with MGTOW? GROOMERS AND THEY ARE GROOMING US to turn us effeminate. Women aren't doing this to us...men are and you don't know what their orientation really is online. Some of the speeches coming from MRA circles sound an awful lot like how gay men perceive women as a threat. "Pussy pass" for example...that's what gay men think women have but if you open your eyes women don't really have that. There is a penis pass. Think of how much we can get away with. They even make up lies about statistics.

They want us addicted to violent porn, effeminate porn, addicted to anal...women don't benefit from that. Calling men white knights for even defending a woman as a shaming tool? Straight men don't come up with that. Bitter males that view women as their competition do.

You can hate women all you want but I'd much rather defend a woman's honor than go sniff a dude bro's ass online for thumbs up and validation. That is a trap.

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

After reading some of your other comments how you think women are some of the most coddled people on the planet..I can see why you were banned.

That's not why. It wasn't his opinions, but because the space is supposed to be for women (as described in the /s/Gender_Critical (with an underscore) sidebar, and the text he quoted, and my mod response.

I wanted to have an open women's discussion space at /s/Gender_Critical (with underscore), with less ideological censorship than /s/GenderCritical (no underscore).

(And I have no affiliation with /s/GenderCritical (no underscore) )

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

You can call me hateful all you want. Then you did not understand the points I was making or looked into the claims I was making. Women are the most protected class, out of biological reasons. Women are also the moral arbiters in our society, which is a huge part of why we had such a rush towards the left, why women can start movements like MeToo and MRA can hardly get legislative change passed. Gay men also do not have the social impact you claim. Our automatic in-group preference is for women, not gay men. Women, the sisterhood as I called it, decide what is program, who has moral ascendency in the end, even when it comes to black people or migrants. They are the biggest voting block and have most social cohesion. Any discrimination you can find or allege in society, against minorities such as black people, is stronger against men than that minority.

I will probably comment on this topic many more times, so follow my account. But to play the same tired games of alleging hate, that I will probably have very little patience for. I do not like identity politics and if you want to debate me, debate the arguments I present, not me as a person. I will not be silenced for the gender people think I have (although, I still do not think I have even disclosed that conclusively) and I will not engage discussions about my mental state. You are not my therapist. If Hitler had said 2+2 is 4, it would still be four, no matter how hateful he was, so buzz off with your nonsense. If this is a site where this type of argumentation flies, I might as well go back to Twitter or Reddit.

You can have this idiocy on every mainstream social media platform. If all you are coming here for is to transform this place into the same sort of hug boxes, with the same intellectually weak identity based ways of argumentation, then all you are here for is entryism, not freedom of speech.

Starr, Sonja B. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 17, no. 1 (2014): 127–159.

Hugenberg, Kurt, and Sabine Sczesny. “On Wonderful Women and Seeing Smiles: Social Categorization Moderates the Happy Face Response Latency Advantage.” Social Cognition 24, no. 5 (2006): 516–539.

Rudman, Laurie A., and Stephanie A. Goodwin. “Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women like Women More than Men like Men?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 4 (2004): 494.

https://archive.org/details/fraudoffeminism00baxerich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

I will not repeat all of the points I made, though. You can look at how the sisterhood ostracizes women who go against the narrative, such as Erin Pizzey, Cassey Jaye, etc. but it is still women, in the end, who will call the shots, which is why the transgender trend will be quite short-lived, as soon as women are hurt, such as in sports and why the media's narrative is about trans-women, not trans-men. This is about women, not transgender people, primarily, or we would not hear this little about women transitioning to men. Read my post. It's linked and I will probably keep talking about this until I am censored on this site as well.

[–]joeytundra 30 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 0 fun31 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you do realize men calling themselves women have been invading women's sports for a long time with women getting hurt and nothing is done about it? Who has you believing women have all this power? Meet Fallon Fox...didn't even disclose from the get go was biologically male. Women were forced to fight this person and cracked a woman's skull open. Nothing was done about it except he got put into the Gay hall of fame even though he's a straight male that identifies as a lesbian. He went hard after this woman because she's a lesbian that doesn't want to have sex with a biological male. There is no pussy pass bro. Tons of shit flies in favor of our wants even if it hurts women and children.

https://www.attacktheback.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-opponents-skull/

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

Why are you responding with this bullshit? This is about freedom of speech.

There is no pussy pass bro.

That is complete bullshit. But regardless whether there is or not, we cannot discuss this in the sub because I can no longer post there. I had also brought up Fallon Fox already myself, which you could have seen if my post wasn't removed -- or if it's still up you did not care to read it. I am not going to rehash all the points I have already spent paragraph after paragraph typing just because of your childish bullshit.

What is the rationale here exactly? That Fallon Fox comes through the screen to kick you in the head if he disagrees with you? If people cannot have valuable input on a topic due to their gender then that implies that they must have a certain opinion due to their gender. If you want to limit your sub because of someone's assumed gender then you want to limit your sub because people might disagree with you. Then why not just set the party line on the sub rules to the points of discussion that people have to fall in line with?

I could set up another account, use a VPN, Tor or something and you would never know my gender. Or, you would have to also ban women who you think are men, based on their comments, so it comes down to party line again. You do not actually know from the words on the screen who is male or female.

What you are doing is not creating a space for women, even if that was sensible online, you are creating, once more, a sub with a given party line. Otherwise, what you are saying is that women have a certain set of opinion, or they are not women.

Go fuck yourself.

[–]joeytundra 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Such a child you are. Grow up bro. Be a real man not a woman hating soy boy!

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

That's precisely part of it: a man, according to simps, must be someone who serves women. Without it, they are not a man. You also have to misrepresent my position by saying that I hate women, which is not true. I (apparently) hate radfems, but that is because of the positions they hold, not because of who they are, as women, due to their gender. They, however, seem to be among the people who think that people hold certain opinions because of them being men or women. I would say that's sexist.

Also, if you are part of that sub, are you a woman? Why do you keep saying "bro"? Are you a guy who needs to be kicked from the sub?

Hey, is there a process for you people at Gender*Critical to determine sex, for the purpose of your community rules? Let's put them to the test. I want to see them working.

I actually do not think that I have stated my gender to any of you. It seems like an assumption, perhaps, was made, but I would really like to know if u/joeytundra is a valid member of your community or not. Mods? s/Gender_Critical, any thoughts? Come on. I want to see your logic in action. I want to see you make a call on this.

Please walk us through this process, in transparent a fashion as possible.

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

s/Gender_Critical, any thoughts?

just fyi if you want to tag someone you can use their username, e.g. /u/ccccccc. Then they will get a notification of the message they were tagged in (unless they turned that off). I didn't see this message until now.

[–]joeytundra 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Here is another special gay rights piece of history. So let me ask you...who sent you? Are you here to be the narcissistic abusive hounder of the women that have been cancelled on reddit? Are you a soyboy?? You don't like women? Let us have them then. You can go cry in another man's arms just like this link wants you to do.

Written by a gay male activist

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/swift1.asp

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I will ponder the points you are making but I will not replace one kind of identitarianism with another. I will not flee censorship in one place just to run into the same bullshit on the site to counter it.

I would also like to point out the argument you are making "I can see why you were banned": that is the same cowardly sleight of hand employed by the people who control the public debate right now. You know exactly what I was banned for. It says so right there in the message. Is this some admission that this was one of those pretenses people use to shut down freedom of speech?

I think the mask is already slipping. Under the pretense of some noble ideals, other people are censored, but it's actually just the same bullshit in another package. Allegations of hatefulness, hate speech regulation, porn prohibitions, identity politics, censorship -- I knew right away why this place creeped me out and it looks like my intuition was right. This is not a place for freedom of speech, this is just a place to put censorship back into the hands who lost the upper hand.

I came in with the intention to give people the benefit of the doubt, I debated honestly, as you can see from my post history, but now I seriously feel some honest contempt. You are unbelievable hypocrites. If you wanted to debate this topic with me, we could have done so in the appropriate sub, from which I am banned now. So far, that is a mere inconvenience, but I am baffled how people are surprised when the same censorship keeps creeping in from the backdoor whenever they start a new community. You people must either be stupid or malicious.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

SaidIt isn't a free speech platform because of the pyramid of debate rule (lots of influential discourse irl takes places at low-pyramid levels), and because of trying to not be like voat (see admin magnora7's comments in /s/holocaustskepticism). Arguably I shouldn't be here because I'm wary of stuff being censored at all and annoyed that people continue to use sites that are censored... but I don't want to read the pornography and the hostility and the grossness and I haven't gotten around to setting up filters and I ended up back here for the time being.

notabug.io (which I think has a pretty neat concept) and freespeechextremist.com (fediverse) are pretty much as-free-as-the-law-allows speech (though of course that still excludes some things). /s/DecentralizeAllThings and /s/SaidItAlternatives list some other platforms that may be of interest.

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

and because of trying to not be like voat

There is a number of factors to voat, and freespeech is only one. Others are down votes, dominating personalities ,lack of any opposition combined to suppress any opposition. I think there is multiple ways you can avoid voat while still having absolute free speech, and optional moderation is one good way. Look how well post collapsing works on Notabug.

notabug.io (which I think has a pretty neat concept) and free

Notabug is alpha, a lot of the features are incomplete. Developer is gone too.

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

Porn reliably gets NSFW tags. That works well, even on Reddit or Twitter, which, ironically, are full with porn. You are more likely to catch a glimpse of a body part you don't like to see at a beach or a pool.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I will not replace one kind of identitarianism with another

What do you mean by "identitarianism" and what do you see as wrong with it?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

People's opinions being judged on the basis of their identity or person, for example, the idea that women would need a space online, absent of their physical presence on a site, where they cannot face danger by being confronted on their opinion. It is what the left is doing with minorities, black people, for example. You can have an opinion or input on something because of your "lived experience". That is akin to saying that a cancer patient is an oncologist.

If you are a male gynecologist, you can still know more about the female body than the average woman. I am a human male, yet, a woman who would have studied (male) anatomy would probably know more about my body than I do.

I believe identitarian positions to be inherently nonsensical. I also despise the idea that men are so detrimental to women that just sharing a discussion board online is harmful to them. An online space already puts you so far apart that this is completely irrelevant. There will also always, always, always be men in any women's space online. It is unavoidable. You can set up sites like Spinsters and you would still have men in the mix. The only difference is between them being honest or not, and I much prefer honesty, as far as it does not compromise the desired level of anonymity, than pretending.

These positions are so untenable in so many ways. Everything about this ideology is contradictory and nonsensical. As a consequence, these online communities inherit the contradictions. That is why they always have to defend their existence with exclusionary rules, banning, silence, authoritarianism. They can never survive on sound logic or truth alone. They always need to shut out a portion of arguments that threaten their premises.

It is not only that they always contort themselves into mental pretzels when structuring their community rules, they also always need to shun honest examination of the basis of their ideology, such as history, biology, evolutionary psychology, or simple statistics. How do people live like this for so long? I used to be a far leftist and I ran into these contradictions, after which I kicked it to the curb.

Let's cut the bullshit and state it plainly: there is no "community of women". What there actually is is a web page displaying text. You are not in danger, you are not in community with anyone. It's some text in English on a screen and either the content is useful or it is not, it is true, false or undecidable. You do not know how it was input, by whom, in what mental state, of what gender, if they were sincere, trolling, or parroting back the party line for approval.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks for explaining.

I guess for me, personally I have been very, idk, into identity stuff lately. I've been following radical feminism and white identity stuff.

I do see some problems with it, and I can see how I'm kindof being used... idk that radical feminism or the alt-right are really acting effectively in the best interests of women or whites all the time. Like, sometimes it seems to help. And I appreciate having a refuge of sorts when I'm tired of hearing how dumb women are, or how bad whites are. And sometimes I just want to be around people who are more "like me," although there are ways I don't feel like I fit in with either of those groups too.

I like them though. I feel like it's different with the spaces are just for people of those groups. Like I tend to have different conversations offline with people in my life if I'm alone with one person, or in a group, or whatever. It's just different. And I don't think there's anything wrong or censorious about having spaces like that, that are clearly defined and explained, and aren't using a space that's meant for everyone (like e.g. /r/news).

It feels like there is value in it too. People are different, sometimes, ethnicity to ethnicity, gender to gender. I usually find it easier to talk with female people, idk why but it's just something I've observed. I usually feel more comfortable with other white people, not always, and sometimes that's just due to political stuff, and sometimes I feel more at ease with people who are from my same locale regardless of race. But it's there. I think there is a value in having spaces like this too.

I don't think having spaces like this necessarily requires people to have the full identitarian politics thing you're talking about though.

Do you feel a similar frustration with things that are meant for groups that you're personally part of, demographically?

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

I don't know anything about the rest. Whatever is personal preference is up to you. If you're on a dating site, you want to be able to specify male or female, of course. If you are looking for a book on chemistry, it might be silly to prefer reading from a male or female author, and I will call you silly for it.

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

Do you feel a similar frustration with things that are meant for groups that you're personally part of, demographically?

Oh, yes, I absolutely do. But that is out of identitarianism, which is why I hate it. I am increasingly forced into thinking in terms of my group membership and my ethnicity, because it can make the difference between me being murdered or not. I am not that naive.

Again, I am not making any statements about my person, just as I believe I have not disclosed my gender or ethnicity, but the more other people validate identity, the less choice I have to remain oblivious to it. I used to have far more connection with people based on interest. I could connect with someone from the other side of the planet based on the same interests.

The gaming community, for example, was destroyed in large part that way, I believe. It used to actually be one of the most inclusive communities imaginable. It did not matter what your gender or ethnicity was. If you liked some of the same games, you were instantly part of the group. It had the ability to bridge divides like few other things. Identitarians destroyed that. On this point, for example, feminists often allege that they were excluded from gaming communities. That could not be further from the truth. Men would have loved women to have shown interests in some of the same hobbies. Instead, it was derided, displayed as "uncool", you were bullied for it, by other men, and women would not have anything to do with you. We all saw that growing up, but now it seems we deny the most transparent parts about our culture.

The smears, lies, and the constant victimhood ideologies were what destroyed it. Suddenly, mere disagreement was violence. Everybody was being equally targeted with abuse for playing badly. People didn't usually know your gender or ethnicity anyway. That is some of the hypocrisy I see in radfems circles and from feminists who say they are being harassed online, on platforms where they have the choice to be completely anonymous. It's transparent what these people are doing. They disclose their identity on purpose so they can claim that they were attacked for it. Had they remained anonymous, such allegations would be obviously without basis. It's like Brianna Wu posting abuse to herself on her own dev account.

Keeping people safe from disagreement keeps them stunted in development. It is the same with the black community as it is with women. Men supposedly have an advantage in their upbringing and maybe that is true in so far that they are not as coddled, that they are told not to cry, that they are told to "man up". Such a community always remains infantile and dependent. People of a more self-reliant generation point this out about their own communities, such as Thomas Sowell. Black people are similarly hypocritical, at least black identitarians, in many of the same ways. They grow up sneering at education, looking down on other blacks who sit down and do their homework, but then they grow up to be useless and complain they were not given the same opportunities. They spat at the opportunities they did have.

But, the more important these aspects become, the more I shift whatever is relevant to identity offline. I do not know whom I speak to online. It could be anyone on the other side of the keyboard. People I need to trust I need to have met offline. I am building such a community, because I do not know how much worse the culture is getting. Then, I might need someone I can rely on.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I am increasingly forced into thinking in terms of my group membership and my ethnicity, because it can make the difference between me being murdered or not. I am not that naive.

It can? You think people from other groups want to murder you?

I used to have far more connection with people based on interest. I could connect with someone from the other side of the planet based on the same interests.

Yeah tbh I've had this experience too. :(

I've missed out on friendships because of this stuff, because it's inside me now, this group-identity stuff, and because it's inside the other people I'm supposed to be connecting with. Who it should be easy for me to connect with.

The smears, lies, and the constant victimhood ideologies were what destroyed it.

Yeah I think this is how the political groups recruit.

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

It can? You think people from other groups want to murder you?

Yes! Jesus, absolutely. If you walk into the wrong parts of certain cities, in certain countries, you better be aware what skin color you have. Today, it can make the difference between being hired or not, getting a spot in college, being attacked on the street, and in some particularly unsafe places if you get mugged or not, if you make it home alive.

Again, I do not disclose anything about my person, my skin color, my gender, but not all countries on this planet are equally safe. Some people who have it best complain the most. They do not realize how safe their communities are in comparison.

Just to be clear, I didn't think this way, I still don't like what is going on but it can be very dangerous to be naive to it.

Also, I don't know what "people from other groups" means. Everybody is from another group, by some metric. I know that I am more likely to be attacked based on certain characteristics. It's not out of some paranoia about certain groups.

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

Wait, just saw this pearl of wisdom here:

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

Sorry, what? Are you off your meds?

But, either way, let's make an example of free speech out of this. If there is only garbage coming out of your mouth, I am free to ignore it. I do not need to censor you to illustrate your mental illness or whatever you are struggling with to the world. I can reply to whatever valid points you are making.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Alright. Are you trying to make a point about censorship? I can ignore you without banning you categorically. You are trying to push me into blocking you to make a point? That won't work.

Also, I can be hypocritical, I won't deny that. But people will call me out on it, just like I am calling out Reddit refugees who set up new hug boxes.

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

This was not written by me. This was an essay published in Gay Magazine in the early 80's.

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

Gay men do in fact have tons of influence. These orgs have billionaire backers which gay men have been the main beneficiaries. If gay men don't like a comedian like Kevin Hart telling a joke 10 years ago...they have the power to cancel him. Then claim they will do the same to Ellen the lesbian for forgiving him. Gay men get their power by pretending they don't have power...then feigning oppression when they are openly celebrated. You should look at what gay men have written about in the past. Explain why most of it has come to pass? You will also see NAMBLA still mentioned in 1987 when this was written. Still using the same techniques.

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

A little from the link

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-"They are all around us!"--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

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

Yes, gay men might have an amount of influence that is not in proportion to their numbers. Like women. Or maybe certain people in the media. But gay men are also a tiny minority of men.

Do you think these things through before you type them?

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

Numbers don't matter when you have power. Also numbers are inflated with the organizations because it's not just gay men in those organizations so politicians take notice of the numbers.

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

You have some interesting takes however the overall feel coming from your writing is that of someone who has become frightened of any sort of power women and women's groups may come to hold and I'd go so far as to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with women holding power or having a say in a program. I do not believe that women will ever come to completely control any "program" although I do not doubt that there is a "sisterhood" and that women can dictate things in a way that not only hurts men, but also other women!

Anyway, on the contrary power is exactly what has elluded women for a very, very long time. Thousands of years. So if you claim that women are the most coddled I would hope that by that you mean subdued and controlled. You cannot deny that women have been historically persecuted against by no other reason than for being female.

I do have concerns about men's rights in all of this because I have firsthand seen advantages given to women with almost no questions asked. Things like child custody battles, alimony, rape accusations. These powers take place in legal court and benefit women more so than men and in some cases the women involved are truly vile people. Poor mothers, refusal to work, cheaters and liars. Although those can also apply to men. And there are reasons such safety nets were put in place to begin with, I do realize that. It is still frightening to see when men are used and abused in this way and I do not think it is right. If you have any literature on that particular imbalance I'd appreciate it. Something that preferably has a solution that you strongly identify with. Thanks.

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

Thank you for your armchair analysis. If you could invest all that time you supposedly spent in already refuting these arguments, it would be nice to just present the facts, which I never end up hearing.

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

You're welcome. I just knew it'd be welcomed by you, considering the piles of individual analysis that you have already provided.

Women and Power

You should probably read it to comprehend better.