Unpopular opinion: parts of third-wave feminism directly led to the rise of trans ideology

submitted by Aureus from self.politics

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]flugegeheimen 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The wars were made by men.

This is an incredibly moronic argument on two levels. First of all, it's an incorrect generalization unless we to believe that English queens were poor marginalized things oppressed by evil peasant menz they ... forcefully sent to die in their wars for example.

Second, even if the previous claim was correct, the only way it could make sense to use it as an argument here is because your moronic misandry completely eroded your already malfunctioning brain. In what way you could see "men dying in wars is fine because men started wars" as a valid argument? Do you realize that "men" is not a single entity but a group of mostly unrelated to each other people? If, for example, a law making the death penalty applicable to female criminals only, was proposed by a woman it wouldn't be sexism against women because a woman proposed it?

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

Very few english queens. Women had not right to the throne. The sons always had the right to take power over the daughter. Henry VIII had multiple wifes and killed women just because they didn't give him a son. Ironically his daughter is known as one of the best english royal and under her power England experienced a golden age.

And nothing comparable to the destruction of wars, almost all made by men.

There is no misandry here. Of course men are separated identity. The point is that you cannot portrait men as victim and gloss over the reason wars and vast majority of crimes happen in the first place.

Men were the ones sent in wars because of physical strenght and women having the roles of child makers. But not because of having a social inferior status as men, because society was always dominated by men and women had inferior submitted status to them.

[–]flugegeheimen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Very few english queens.

Even one would be enough to disprove you.

The point is that you cannot portrait men as victim

You absolutely can exactly because 'men' is not a hivemind. Wars didn't happen because of the men that were conscripted against their will to die in these wars. They were victims. You still can't get out of your misandric dehumanizing view of men as a united homogenous blob. Some person doing something in no way justifies the oppression against another person just because they both happened to have similar genitalia.

But not because of having a social inferior status as men, because society was always dominated by men and women had inferior submitted status to them.

What men Queen Victoria (for example) was socially inferior to and dominated by all her reign?

[–]florasis 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Not, it wouldn't disprove. Virtually almost all wars have been made by men, because they were and still the ones in power and women were marginalized, oppressed and didn't even have power, over their own life, since they were under father or husband authority, let alone a country.

Again, men being sent to wars by others men because of physical superiority or women being weaker and having the role of child makers, isn't about men being victims of social inferior status. You cannot being sexually oppressed, when your sex is literally the ones in power.

And Victoria became queen because the males before her died. A woman could become queens only in the lack of males. A brothers always come before a sister in succession. The law was changed only recently to give daughters same right of son to take the throne, but now the royals powerful like in the past, so means nothing.

And even if the queen was in power, the entire society was male dominated and women were submitted and discriminated on sex base. Even the queen herself come after the male counterparts and only was queen cause they weren't available.

[–]flugegeheimen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Virtually almost all wars have been made by men, because they were and still the ones in power and women were marginalized, oppressed and didn't even have power, over their own life

What men Queen Victoria (for example) was socially inferior to and dominated by all her reign?

You cannot being sexually oppressed, when your sex is literally the ones in power.

You absolutely can exactly because 'men' is not a hivemind. ... You still can't get out of your misandric dehumanizing view of men as a united homogenous blob.

It's kind of telling I can answer literally by quoting my own comment you are allegedly replying to. Let me try it that way:

SEX CAN NOT BE IN POWER, SPECIFIC PEOPLE ARE. ALSO ALL SOCIAL STRATA INCLUDE MEN AND WOMEN.

I have little hope all caps will get through your thick skull though. You also predictably ignored the analogy addressing this thing:

If, for example, a law making the death penalty applicable to female criminals only, was proposed by a woman it wouldn't be sexism against women because a woman proposed it?

What, your misandric blinders didn't let you to read it?

Again, men being sent to wars by others men because of physical superiority or women being weaker

The main reason they were sent to wars is because they were disposable. There is no lower social status than cannon fodder. When you are forced to die for something it's a social level of cattle in the butchery.

And Victoria became queen because blablablah

Yeah, I was sure you won't answer the question and you didn't:

What men Queen Victoria (for example) was socially inferior to and dominated by all her reign?

And final thing:

And even if the queen was in power, the entire society was male dominated and women were submitted and discriminated on sex base.

Here you realize how moronic was your argument and how inconvenient female rulers to it, so you give up a little: "Well, IF we throw out that cursed royal hag out of a picture THEN it will be the full blown dystopia with oppressed womyn I'm crying about". Yeah, no. Even in this case we would just have to make an additional step and take some princess or duchess or whatever, so 99.9999% of male population will still have incomparably lower social status which returns us back to the square one.

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

Oh my. Sex can be in power, if someone is in power based on sex. And male sex has always being in power , while women have always been marginalized and oppressed and submitted for not being males.

The reasons was just because of physical superiority and women being childmakers, again.

I already told you, and you decided to ignore it, that queen Victoria herself was in an inferior position as woman comparing to her male counterparts. The males peers came before her in succession for the sole fact of having a dick. She only became queen because they were not available.

Sex based discrimination isn't about individual case of person in power nor is about the social discrimination of upper middle class members being considered superior to lower status people. It's about an entire system, laws and tradition which favors the power and privilege of one sex over the others. And that's has always been male over females.

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

I feel like I'm arguing with a pile of bricks with carefully blunted edges.

while women have always been marginalized and oppressed

How the fuck you are "marginalized and oppressed" when you are literally a ruler and answer to nobody but an (imaginary) God?

The reasons was just because of physical superiority and women being childmakers, again.

The main reason they were sent to wars is because they were disposable, again. "women being childmakers" kind of touches the male disposability too.

I already told you, and you decided to ignore it, that queen Victoria herself was in an inferior position as woman comparing to her male counterparts.

And then she became a queen. What men she was socially inferior to and dominated by all her reign?

Sex based discrimination isn't about individual case of person in power

Well, I have to admit it took a while before you inevitably dived into words redefinition feminist bullshit.

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

The brick would have more logical ability than you, actually. Like you cannot take an example of a woman rule as a way to say sexism doesn't exist, when the same woman was subjected to sexist laws which put her behind her male counterpart simply because she was a female.There is no redefinition of words.. Sexism isn't about individual cases.. It's about an entire system and society where men are in power and privileged and women are oppressed and discriminated in favor or men on the sole basis of sex. So, your shitty example of a queen who got in power because the males who has priority over her for the sole fact of men, weren't alive, doesn't change it, actually confirms it.

And again, men making war for profit and power and sending men to war cause they were the strongest sex, doesn't make men beings treated as inferior. The only beings who have been treated as socially and legally inferior to other sex have always been women.

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

The brick would have more logical ability than you, actually. Like you cannot take an example of a woman rule as a way to say sexism doesn't exist, when the same woman was subjected to sexist laws which put her behind her male counterpart simply because she was a female.There is no redefinition of words.. Sexism isn't about individual cases.. It's about an entire system and society where men are in power and privileged and women are oppressed and discriminated in favor or men on the sole basis of sex. So, your shitty example of a queen who got in power because the males who has priority over her for the sole fact of men, weren't alive, doesn't change it, actually confirms it.

And again, men making war for profit and power and sending men to war cause they were the strongest sex, doesn't make men beings treated as inferior. The only beings who have been treated as socially and legally inferior to other sex have always been women.

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

logical ability

Don't use words you know nothing about.

Like you cannot take an example of a woman rule

Yes, I can. This is how logic works. When you are screeching that "women have always been marginalized and oppressed" I only need one (1) example to prove you wrong. You should also shove your "sexism doesn't exist" strawman back to your ass you pulled it from.

There is no redefinition of words.. Sexism isn't about individual cases.

"There is no redefinition of words. I redefine sexism as .." Nothing in sexism definition says that it isn't about individual cases. You are redefining words as a typical feminist moron has a habit to do.

And again

And again, don't repeat your bullshit that was already addressed if you have no new arguments. It won't suddenly stop being bullshit if you screech it over and over long enough.