- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2604 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
917 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 15041
>Drag queens banned from performing at Free Pride Glasgow event over fears acts will offend trans people
>The organisation said in a statement that it hopes to create a safe space for all members of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual) community, and that while the decision may "disappoint" some people "the needs of the most marginalised groups within our community come first."
>Free Pride Glasgow said: “It was felt that it [drag performance] would make some of those who were transgender or questioning their gender uncomfortable. It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke.”
Life rarely takes the piss out of itself like this. It almost sounds like the plot of a South Park episode.
|>>|| No. 15042
I wondered how one is reliably supposed to sort men in drag from trans birds and of course they've thought of this and found a solution that makes complete sense.
>It went on to stress that attendees can wear "what they want" and "express their gender how they please", but that "self-described drag acts" would not be allowed to perform.
|>>|| No. 15044
This is very odd. I know a few people who are in to drag acts and from them I can tell it's a very inclusive sort of thing. As I understand it, it's a very specific form of expression for gay men and it seems daft to think it's in any way antagonistic or mocking of gender identity. There's a very big difference between drag acts and blokes wearing dresses for their stag do, and the difference primarily is tolerance.
Drag queens are just as much a part of LGBT culture as anyone else. It also seems illogical that a trans person would see a gay man dressing and acting as (a theatrical version of) a woman would be anything other than empowering or reassuring? If this bloke can do it then so can I, sort of thing?
People these days will argue their own communities apart with po faced righteousness. So much for solidarity.
|>>|| No. 15048
It's that snowflake thing...
"You can have any opinion you want, as long as it's my opinion or one that I deem suitable."
|>>|| No. 15049
So what are you supposed to do when affirmed consent is not forthcoming? Leave them to wallow in their own shit? Or teach them instead that the powerful can override consent?
|>>|| No. 15050
My hope is that within a generation or two LGBTetc will be normalised in a broad enough way that this bizarre "who is more hard done by" culture can stop. I suspect it won't as it's a great way to control people, but here we are.
A friend of mine made a great point that these sorts of social justice people annoy the piss out of him, as he's gay, and they treat him with an odd sort of reverence and sensitivity that they wouldn't a straight bloke - thus still treating him unequally. He can never be sure if he's really friends with these marple haired women or if he's merely part of a social proof of their righteousness. By being hyper aware of his sexuality at all times, they make him feel even less normalised - like their relentless crusade makes him feel like a freak who should be swaddled in bubblewrap, rather than just a bloke who happens to like blokes.
This is only one chap's opinion but I reckon he's not alone in feeling that way. I certainly would if I were gay.
|>>|| No. 15052
>Leave them to wallow in their own shit?
Exactly this, I would guess.
In its own strange way, that would then revive a parenting concept that has been falling out of fashion for fear of hurting your precious little snowflakes, and that is to learn from your own mistakes.
For example, I once fell into a knee deep ditch with water and mud, belly first and with my face then covered in dirt all over, while I was out in the woods with my parents on a Sunday afternoon walk. I started crying and screaming, but my dad just said "You're going to have to be more careful next time, if you want to keep this from happening". That was it. I knew from that point on that roadside ditches were treacherous, and it never happened to me again. Compare that to today's parents, who are even afraid to let their kids out of their walled up back gardens without all manner of protective devices.
We are raising a generation of eternal five-year-olds, with no appropriate sense of danger and no ability to look after themselves, and who will all be needing therapy by age 30.
But there is hope that not all countries are like that. Not every culture raises its children to remain children for life.
I travelled to Turkey a few years ago, and one night on the beach, I saw two weelads who couldn't have been older than about ten, and they were going out spear fishing at dusk, just wearing swimming trunks and children's diving goggles. And with daylight fading fast, they were hunting squid in the gloom of the coastal waters, as they later told me (and showed me their catch). Two completely unsupervised 10-year-olds, spear fishing for squid in the dark and without lights while the wind was picking up and the seas were getting slightly rough. I don't know any parents here in Britain who wouldn't be having kittens at the thought of letting their 10-year-olds do anything like that. But in Turkey, apparently this isn't out of the ordinary.
|>>|| No. 15058
You're not wrong. My mum told me she had to have words with my grandma, as when she looked after me she was deathly afraid of anything that might even come close to hurting me - she managed to make me afraid of bees for a few years because she'd freak the fuck out whenever one came in the garden and usher me inside as if we were in the middle of an air raid.
I don't doubt that she meant well, but I daresay if I'd been raised by her, I'd be a massive fucking fanny. Now that I'm thinking about it - my dad is a giant man baby who can't function without a woman to look after him. Hmm.
|>>|| No. 15060
As a bi-lad I'd say it's a mixed bag.
Most of this nonsense passes me by as I tend to view myself as a person first and foremost who just happens to be attracted to men and women rather than letting my sexuality define me.
I know some people who fully get wrapped up a bubble where they're obsessed with finding things 'problematic' or perceiving 'micro-aggressions' everywhere they go. They'll read blogs within their little echo chambers and convince themselves that something which has passed most people by, or if they're aware of it they just shrug and move on, is a really big fucking deal.
What I'm saying is that you find twats in all walks of life, regardless of sexuality.
|>>|| No. 15063
Some people just want something to be offended about, some cause that makes them a righteous warrior for good and everyone else an evil oppressor.
The QUILTBAG lot are absolutely tedious. They spend endless amounts of time bickering about labels and microaggressions, but they say and do nothing about the real issues facing gay and trans* people and MSMs. I've had numerous conversations with studenty social justice types who claim to be QUILTBAG "advocates" but have never heard of chemsex, Scruff, Birchplace or PrEP.
|>>|| No. 15068
>Some people just want something to be offended about, some cause that makes them a righteous warrior for good and everyone else an evil oppressor.
The SJW movement in a nutshell.
|>>|| No. 15072
Christ this site has become like fucking YouTube comments.
|>>|| No. 15073
It's all been down hill since we acquiesced to the demands of the suffragette daft militant wog group.
|>>|| No. 15074
I'm gay and have never heard of Scruff or Birchplace. Am I not gay enough for you, gay police?
|>>|| No. 15076
Birchplace is a web site where you can meet GLBT people and reply to profile ads.
I'm straight and I know Birchplace.
|>>|| No. 15077
>I'm straight and I know Birchplace.
So? Again, does that make you more gay than me, or more pro-gay, or some other ridiculous contention? Why do you need to be aware of some dating site in order to support LGBT people? It's just nonsense.
|>>|| No. 15081
>Am I not gay enough for you, gay police?
I wouldn't expect any gay or trans* person to have a broad knowledge of the scene as a whole. Most people are just getting on with their lives, which is absolutely fine. I would expect a self-described activist or advocate to know that stuff. My grievance is with people who seem to spend most of their free time banging on about what society should and shouldn't be doing with respect to LGBT issues, despite being very ignorant about many of the people they purport to represent.
Birchplace is important because it's the main hub for trans* dating and sex work. If you don't know that it exists, you're highly unlikely to be aware of the extent to which many young trans* people engage in sex work in order to survive, or the huge number of foreign trans* sex workers who are living and working in the UK without legal residency status. These people are incredibly vulnerable, but they're not getting the support they need from the health service and the third sector.
Scruff is a masc-only version of Grindr. It represents a hugely significant issue in the gay scene, namely the stigmatisation of femme behaviour. It's also the venue for a lot of the highest-risk behaviour on the hookup and party scene. I should also mention Jack'd, an app predominantly used by BME gay men, because it highlights the remarkable amount of overt racism in some corners of the scene and the unique difficulties faced by many BME LGBT people.
|>>|| No. 15082
He did it to himself basically, when he misinterpreted that statement as an attack on his gayness.
I always thought they teach you in gay school very early on that gayer-than-thou cunt offs lead nowhere.
|>>|| No. 15084
>the remarkable amount of overt racism
This is a rather problematic statement to make.
Firstly, there's the rather patronising assumption that being gay automatically means you're more tolerant than other people. Some of the most intolerant people I know are gay. There's a good reason black and Asian people tend to be viewed with suspicion and that's simply because these groups tend to be more homophobic in general. Far more homophobic. The last few occasions I've experienced homophobia have all been by Asian men. Many gays are concerned about the demographic changes happening within this country as it is seeing an increase of people with more backwards views coming here; it's been noted in Germany that there has been a marked rise in anti-semitism since Merkel invited over millions of Arabs.
Secondly, not being attracted to other ethnicities doesn't make you racist. I'm generally more attracted to white people than black people. That's not racism.
|>>|| No. 15087
>Secondly, not being attracted to other ethnicities doesn't make you racist. I'm generally more attracted to white people than black people.
I had this conversation with a Persian friend of mine once, who accused me of being slightly racist because I said I am attracted mainly to white British girls, and that blonde girls tickle my fancy the most. He wouldn't let it stand that this isn't racism, but simply a sexual preference.
But it makes no more sense to me than saying you're homophobic as a lad because you find yourself only sexually attracted to women.
|>>|| No. 15088
You're completely within your rights to sleep with whoever you fancy, but we can't ignore the political and cultural aspects of desire. We're socialised from a very early age to conform and aspire to a particular ideal.
The obvious example is fat women - there are loads of blokes who would happily sleep with a fat woman, but wouldn't want their mates to catch them. In gay culture, I think there's a clear undercurrent of internalised homophobia; most of the guys you see in porn are hyper-masculine stereotypes and often presented as "straight". There's a clear stigma against twinks and effeminate or camp men; being obviously gay is a huge turn-off for a lot of gay guys. Before his death, Dale Winton often spoke about being a persona non grata on the gay scene, because he was "too gay" - he represented a kind of out-and-proud mincing poofter stereotype that many gay men are deeply ashamed to be associated with.
|>>|| No. 15089
It's a bit of both, I think. There's certainly no inherent reason for you to find white women more attractive than people of other races - in fact from an genetic diversity perspective shouldn't you be finding exotic women more attractive? - so it boils down to the traits that society push as being desirable. To a certain extent you have been conditioned, as we all have, to desire whiteness.
People will also couple off because of strong cultural reasons within their own racial groupings, which affects people of all ethnicities. E.g. people are more likely to socialise, or feel safer, with their own ethnicity.
>>15088 is a bastard for posting while I was halfway through writing this.
In the end though you shouldn't really be blamed for your own sexual preferences, but you should question and acknowledge where those preferences may arise from, and assist in dismantling the systems that favour white people, even when it comes to personal relationships.
|>>|| No. 15090
Alternatively, it is racist or homophobic, and okay with the fact that there's nothing wrong with that.
|>>|| No. 15091
> I think there's a clear undercurrent of internalised homophobia; most of the guys you see in porn are hyper-masculine stereotypes and often presented as "straight". There's a clear stigma against twinks and effeminate or camp men; being obviously gay is a huge turn-off for a lot of gay guys.
My guess, as a straight guy, would be that gay men prefer blokey blokes just the same way as straight women do. It's masculinity that is attractive, and I could imagine that an effeminate, camp outward appearance and demeanor take away from that. In that sense, gays will probably much rather have a shag with Ricky Martin than with Julian Clary.
>There's certainly no inherent reason for you to find white women more attractive than people of other races - in fact from an genetic diversity perspective shouldn't you be finding exotic women more attractive?
All I can say is, I've felt drawn the most to blonde white girls for as long as I can remember, certainly since early youth when I developed an actual sexual interest in them. What I can say is that in my family on both sides, we're all the dark haired light skinned Norman types, so my predilection for blonde white women could actually be a desire for somebody who is genetically different from me, if just barely.
>In the end though you shouldn't really be blamed for your own sexual preferences, but you should question and acknowledge where those preferences may arise from, and assist in dismantling the systems that favour white people, even when it comes to personal relationships.
I don't know, that sounds a bit too borrowed from 1970s feminism for me, where the personal was declared political.
|>>|| No. 15100
Hello lads. There's no such thing as black and gay. You're either one or the other because straight and white are defaults. Btw you're the real racist if you ever challenge this. Also blacks are a low percentage of the population and so are gays, that means they're both minorities and therefore in competition with each other for straight, white approval. How could they be working together unless they were LYING?
|>>|| No. 15103
>You're either one or the other because straight and white are defaults.
I vaguely remember seeing an old sketch on TV a few years ago where one of the two people was a black woman in a wheelchair. She was applying for government benefits of some kind and when she was asked about her marital status, she said she was also a lesbian. And the person behind the desk gave her a John Cleese/Monty Python kind of look and said, "You just had to tick all the boxes while you were at it, didn't you".
Poor racial stereotype jokes aside, I had a few friends in the black Afro-Caribbean community while I was still living in London, and my perception was that homophobia was indeed very pronounced among them. When I was hanging out in the clubs together with them, they would react quite strongly when we came across a gay couple here and there, in a way that you wouldn't normally expect nowadays from white British people.
|>>|| No. 15104
>Poor racial stereotype jokes aside, I had a few friends in the black Afro-Caribbean community while I was still living in London, and my perception was that homophobia was indeed very pronounced among them. When I was hanging out in the clubs together with them, they would react quite strongly when we came across a gay couple here and there, in a way that you wouldn't normally expect nowadays from white British people.
I'd say it's their macho culture, which is why they're all shooting/stabbing/throwing acid at each other because they've been dissing rival gangs on YouTube to show that they're Billy Big Bollocks, but the women are just as bad for it, if not worse.
|>>|| No. 15105
> which is why they're all shooting/stabbing/throwing acid at each other
Let's stick with one assortment of racial sterotypes for now, before we open another can of worms.
If you lived in North London, you knew to be more afraid of mean looking white lads than blacks. In my part of North London, luckily things were a bit more quiet than elsewhere, but when there was talk of a knife fight locally and all that sort of thing, very often the perpetrators were white teenlad dolescum. That isn't to say most black younglads there were model citizens, just that there was a very noticeable share of petty and small-scale violent crime committed by white (unemployed) younglads.
|>>|| No. 15106
RACE THAT MAKES UP 90% OF THE POPULATION RESPONSIBLE FOR 50%+ OF THE CRIME SHOCKER.
|>>|| No. 15107
It's definitely not exclusively a race thing, Glasgow used to have similar problems with knife crime, but the issue specifically in London seems to be perpetuated by certain cultures. To state otherwise is to ignore the rather large pachyderm in the room.
|>>|| No. 15108
Again, I wasn't saying there was no crime committed by blacks. All I meant was, it was striking that there were many white (juvenile) delinquents in the area of North London where I lived.
|>>|| No. 15186
You could have given me a trigger warning that the linked article unironically contains the phrase "male gaze", you inconsiderate prick.
|>>|| No. 15187
I think we're at a point now where the whole gender malarkey has just been so muddled up that not even the proponents of LGBT rights know anymore which way is up.
But what really irks me these days is that you can't say anything without somebody blaring over the whole Internet how much the thing you had the audacity to say offends them.
People say things you will not agree with it. All the time. Some of those things you will find just daft, other things will feel genuinely upsetting. Deal with it, and don't fall into your conditioned knee jerk response at every turn of taking to your usual online echo chambers and moaning about it.
That's what's really wrong with Millennials. Their sense of entitlement, and that it does not compute to them that somebody else should get to say things that will upset or offend their own world view. No matter how greatly.
|>>|| No. 15196
>That's what's really wrong with Millennials
I was with you up til this point and now I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not.
These millennials are quite in vogue as the new acceptable target for discrimination these days, but it's about as vague as you can get. A millennial could be anybody, they just happen to fit into this age bracket.
At least black people all have a tendency towards violent crime in common when you make sweeping generalisations about their entire race, but the millennial thing is like discriminating against air breathers.
|>>|| No. 15209
Only someone who has an inherent bias against a group could look at reasonable discussions taking place within it and declare them to be evidence that their entire standpoints are bankrupt.
If someone came to .gs and read some of our regular cunt-offs and then said 'This is yet more proof that white men are hysterical and irrational creatures that are unable to agree on anything', you'd think they were mental.
So for the love of Christ why can't you let the bisexual community decide what's best for the bisexual community?
|>>|| No. 15210
>So for the love of Christ why can't you let the bisexual community decide what's best for the bisexual community?
Because they're not a council, and telling someone who is bisexual that they 'got bisexuals wrong' is like me telling you that you're a rubbish white man (if you are). It means nothing. There's no metric to being white aside from that you have that colour skin. To dictate who or what is a valid bisexual or bisexual statement is mind-numbingly stupid, particularly if your platform is that bisexuals should be able to express themselves freely.
To say that it's wrong of a bisexual to talk about the sexual side of who they are instead of the romantic one is unfair. It's also short sighted considering we're talking about a pop song.
|>>|| No. 15211
Again, I think it's up to LGBTIQ people how they want their community to be represented. If you have a hundred people of that background telling you that you're being harmful to them, then you're probably being harmful to them.
You're being disingenuous with your idea that the song is merely talking "about the sexual side of who they are instead of the romantic one". The very real issues involved are of bisexual erasure and illegitimacy and how the song perpetuates these old tropes.
If you insist on bringing it back to the race analogy, it's like a black guy writing a novel about a black society founded on violent crime. Do you really think the black community would give that a pass because it's by a black author and therefore there is no "wrong" way to express blackness? And if they didn't, would you tell them it's "unfair" of them not to celebrate this novel?
|>>|| No. 15212
>would you tell them it's "unfair" of them not to celebrate this novel?
I wouldn't say they have to celebrate it, but I'd still disagree if they called it problematic. It's a novel, not a manifesto.
I don't get annoyed when people write novels about evil white men. Or is that somehow different?
|>>|| No. 15213
I can find a much larger community of Christians who will say gay marriage is harmful to them then gay people who want to get married. The fact that millions of people believe something doesn't make them any more correct, no matter how passionate they are about it.
|>>|| No. 15214
>Only someone who has an inherent bias against a group could look at reasonable discussions taking place within it and declare them to be evidence that their entire standpoints are bankrupt.
I'm bisexual. People do not need to have their personal identity and experiences vetted by the Ministry of Truth to ensure that they are thinking in the correct manner.
|>>|| No. 15215
> Do you really think the black community would give that a pass
Where would such a pass be obtained? Does the black community have regular meetings where all black people can get together and discuss the latest developments in blackness, and discuss new releases from black literature.
Does the white community have a similar meet-up? I'm a bit unsociable and perhaps never got invited.
|>>|| No. 15216
>Do you really think the black community would give that a pass
Why do you insist on speaking about minorities as if they're a collective? By allowing one, or several bisexuals to speak as the authority on bisexuals, you rob them of their individuality, and suddenly their sexuality is their defining factor. You actually promote segregation by implying that all bisexuals must think and act alike, or even consider 'bisexual' to be a separate community.
How about they're just people, who all have different opinions and thoughts on Rita Ora's new fucking song? Some may be offended, some may support her, but to suggest in any way that someone should be allowed to tell her she's doing bisexuality wrong is abhorrent, and promotes the very prejudices you're supposed to want to see conquered.
There are two types of people who try to put minority races and sexualities into segregated bubbles, who put a great amount of effort into reminding everyone that they're different and don't fit in. Those two groups are bigots, and social justice bemoaners.
Maybe if the discussion stopped being "gay people are not the same as you and you need to be aware of that at all times in case you upset them" and started being "gay people are just normal fucking people" everyone would be better off?
|>>|| No. 15224
Yes it is different. White people haven't been subject to centuries-old prejudice that can be perpetuated in cultural artifacts. White people are considered default.
Nice fallacy lad. If you think Christians have a right to a voice on same-sex marriage then I can see why you might also think everyone else can tell the bisexual community what to do.
No-one is suggesting a Ministry of Truth. Collective reactions by a community of people are easily observed. You can be an outlier on this song issue if you like but if hundreds of others consider it harmful then they need to be listened to. You don't get to be David Brent saying it's OK to tell racist jokes because one black guy in the office didn't mind them.
Yes they do, you just don't hear about the secret meeting times and places because they are communicated through energy waves of black power. Also Meetup.com, e.g.: https://www.meetup.com/afrocaribbeanbookclub/
>Why do you insist on speaking about minorities as if they're a collective?
Because no minority in history has ever gained rights through the actions of a single individual.
>How about they're just people, who all have different opinions and thoughts on Rita Ora's new fucking song?
>that someone should be allowed to tell her she's doing bisexuality wrong is abhorrent, and promotes the very prejudices you're supposed to want to see conquered.
Could you explain this statement? What prejudices are promoted by the song being considered harmful to bisexuality?
|>>|| No. 15226
>What prejudices are promoted by the song being considered harmful to bisexuality?
The perception of the minority being insular and isolated rather than an integral part of wider society.
|>>|| No. 15227
That's just concern trolling. On the contrary, if these issues are taken seriously rather than dismissed on the grounds of 'free speech it's just a joke' etc., which is essentially what this is, the minority's place in wider society is made more secure.
To be more specific, the issue being taken with the song is that it portrays bisexuality as being a straight woman who does sexual things with women for a bit of a laugh. Bisexual people have long had to struggle against this perception that are just 'faking' their sexuality. If this isn't addressed, then to use your terms they become isolated rather than an accepted part of society.
|>>|| No. 15230
>That's just concern trolling.
Yeah, no. Fuck off, mate.
>To be more specific, the issue being taken with the song is that it portrays bisexuality as being a straight woman who does sexual things with women for a bit of a laugh.
It's her identity. How she establishes and expresses her own identity is a matter for her and her alone. It's not for the Professionally Offended Brigade to decide for her what expressions of her identity are acceptable or not by bringing pressure to bear like this. The whiners have effectively forced her to apologise for who she is, and if you support that you're no better than the homophobes in the Free Presbyterian who consider the whole thing sinful.
|>>|| No. 15232
>the Professionally Offended Brigade
I think you need to have a good fuqué offo yourself, lad.
Gosh is it her identity I didn't realise. But unfortunately in the real world how you express yourself has certain ramifications by virtue of impacting on how other people are treated. That's the way it is chum, and she seems to understand that better than you do: "I would never intentionally cause harm to other LBGTQ+ people or anyone".
|>>|| No. 15233
Precisely what part of "it's none of your fucking business" are you struggling with here?
|>>|| No. 15612
A Get The L Out spokeswoman said: "We protested to protect our rights and on behalf of all the lesbians intimidated, threatened and silenced by the GBT community everywhere.
"The GBT community today, by supporting the rights of males who "identify as lesbians" (also called "transwomen") over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners (on the basis of their sex, not how they "identify") is in fact enforcing heterosexuality on lesbians.
"This is a misogynistic and anti-lesbian manifestation of the rape culture we live in."
Sometimes it feels like people are trying to string along sentences using as many buzzwords as possible.
|>>|| No. 15613
TERFs gonna TERF. Nothing to see here, except why the fuck London Pride thought it was OK to let openly anti-trans people lead a march to support trans people.
|>>|| No. 15615
They didn't. It was supposed to be NHS LGBT+ Staff Network leading the march. Get The L Out (all eight of them) forced their way to the front.
|>>|| No. 15618
Can someone explain what they're even on about? What do they actually want?
|>>|| No. 15619
>>15618 If your entire life revolves about fighting for rights for those-born-female-of-which-you-happen-to-be-one, and transgender folk rock up saying 'look, I'm a woman now, gimme
those rights', there's a tension. Doubly so if it's a self identifying bloke in a frock. Triply so if it's a hypothetical perv bloke who says 'am girl, am coming into your changing room / battered womens' hostel / whatever'.
Rights clashing against rights. Not going to be any winners here, just a lot of acrimony.
|>>|| No. 15620
>a hypothetical perv bloke who says 'am girl, am coming into your changing room / battered womens' hostel / whatever'.
The thing is, that's an almost entirely hypothetical scenario. If pervs were claiming to be trans women to do pervy things, it'd be all over the front page of the Daily Mail. TERFs are equally annoyed about trans men, who they see as lesbians who have been bamboozled by the patriarchy.
IMO, there's a generation of radical lesbian activists who have found themselves marginalised in the LGBT movement. The likes of Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas were once these scary revolutionaries who threatened the fabric of patriarchal society, but these days they're just a punchline to a very old joke.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s, it was quite common to encounter radical feminists who thought that women should completely separate from the patriarchy and build lesbian-only communities. A lot of radical feminists really did believe that all (heterosexual) sex is rape and all men are rapists. Those people didn't go away, but subsequent generations of feminists and lesbians see their views as so absurd that they scarcely believe that they were ever sincere.
TERFs aren't all that bothered about trans people, they've just chosen that issue as the hill to die on. It's the ideological shibboleth that separates the old radical ideology from the a younger generation of LGBT people who just want to get on with their lives. Bizarre as it might seem, they see the acceptance of LGBT people and the family-friendly vibe of modern Pride marches as a failure; they don't want to be accepted and don't want to integrate. They want to go back to war, which requires an enemy.
|>>|| No. 15622
>Valerie Solanas were once these scary revolutionaries who threatened the fabric of patriarchal society
That's a very polite way of saying she was a nutter who tried to murder Andy Warhol.
|>>|| No. 15624
>Those people didn't go away, but subsequent generations of feminists and lesbians see their views as so absurd that they scarcely believe that they were ever sincere.
In truth, feminism at its core really hasn't come a long way since those days though. I dare you to spend one evening with a die hard feminist who eats, sleeps, breathes and shits feminism. You will be right to point out that every movement has its crackpots, but it is scary what some feminist women still think of men today. It's not about a fairer, more equal world for everybody. No, to them, masculinity is still the enemy. And you are a patriarchist arsehole if you don't agree with them.
You will never find me denying that women and men should have equal rights and opportunity, as well as equal responsibilities. Everybody deserves to get somewhere in life in accordance with how hard they try. But that is where it ends with me. Men aren't by default arseholes, nor do we by default support patriarchy or keep women down. Also, not everything that doesn't work out in your life as a woman, feminist or not, is the fault of men or patriarchy. Women, same as men, can simply fail. And if you don't accept that, then I cannot take you seriously as a feminist.
|>>|| No. 15625
Something I've seen in Hollywood is the idea of Feminism coming full circle and women saying "let us play characters who are flawed, these bland Mary Sues are shit!"
3rd wave extremist don't acknowledge that as a problem though, they are still dying on the hill of women being exploited and addressing issues about women hating the Characters they are forced to play is problematic for a number of reasons, at least to the people who write the scripts.
It makes no fucking sense to me. Harping on about women getting better roles and then those same women writing shit characters for women, who then complain and get called problematic for not supporting women in the Writers Guild or something. Then, men calling these women toxic like they have a fucking oar in the race.
Julie Bindel was the last loon to get a platform in printed media and she used it to call Transgender people dangerous to the Lesbian community, when most of them are attracted to men asfaik. Rationality is checked at the end of the aisle of the feminist literature section of the library and not regained until they become pensioners, if Germaine Greer is anything to go by. She is even considered problematic these days, for her views about Men's role in society.
|>>|| No. 15626
You can't win with these types.
If you portray successful career women who somehow juggle being a mum of two and a darling wife with a 60 hours a week career at the top of their field, then you will get flak for putting pressure to perform on women because it's "unrealistic". But when you write a part of a stay at home mum who raises the kids while her husband is at work and makes him dinner every night, then that's a depiction of no longer desired antiquated gender roles. And thirdly, if you show women who are just about doing alright, you will be accused of attempting to deter women from striving for more.
The real problem, I've said it many times, is that women are just too impressionable. They are far too susceptible to believing verbatim the things they see on TV and read in the gossip rags about celebrities, career women, and other perfect pictures of uber successful other women that are simply not attainable for the average person and should serve as no standard to measure your own success as a human being in life.
I think men are much more prepared to go their own way in life and not pay attention to all of that. Men have always been expected to fend for themselves out there and make the best of what they are dealt. You are allowed to have your role models, but you won't see men all absorbed in a made-for-TV drama envying the main character because he is a CEO, drives a Porsche and has a five-bedroom house in Chelsea. Men are much more prepared to see it for what it is and to realise that that's fiction, that it's a fantasy world that they have little chance of turning into reality for themselves. And men are by and large fine with it.
Also, it isn't all just men who are hindrances to women being successful. Not all of it is the fault of the old boys clubs and what have you. Women tend to do a lot of it to each other, with the way they scheme, gossip, and exclude other women they don't like. With the same fierceness with which they compete for the most desirable men, they will also compete for everything else in life, and they will use unfair means against members of their own gender and they will put each other down left, right, and centre.
But what's really disturbing is that feminists blame even that on men not giving women enough opportunity. All I can say from decades of experience being with women is that a lot of women simply have that in them. It doesn't matter if there really are only few opportunities for them at their job or if they even have special workplace programmes for women. Women, if they reach a critical mass in a workplace, will turn almost every office into a reenactment of Dynasty.
|>>|| No. 15630
Of course they can. However, if a gender is being bashed on here then there's a 99.99% chance it's female.
|>>|| No. 15638
> However, if a gender is being bashed on here then there's a 99.99% chance it's female
And you are basing that finding on what exactly? Solid empirical testing?
But for argument's sake, it comes with the territory of image boards. I would say a good 90 percent on .gs and probably even more than that on 4chan are men. And not just any old (or young) men, but men who tend to not have the best chances with women, an experience which often leaves them frustrated, so they vent.
You don't need to wander far to experience quite nearly the exact opposite. If you look around some web forums of women's magazines, you will read endless litanies by women moaning and complaining about either the shit male partner they are with, or that men in general are shit. That's where women go to vent, and it often ain't pretty.
Everybody, men same as women, has had their share of frustration with the other gender. To accuse .gs, which is, again, almost all male, of women bashing kind of turns the issue on its head.
And if that creates a "hostile environment of gender based verbal violence", as some gender scientists would have you believe, so what. As a bloke, nobody greets you with open arms on women's forums either.
|>>|| No. 15639
>To accuse .gs, which is, again, almost all male, of women bashing kind of turns the issue on its head.
Well it would be nice if women could get discussed once in a while without them being either belittled or objectified. Some times this board is quiet as fuck and then the opportunity for woman-bashing arises and you're like dogs with a bone, creeping out of the woodwork to chip in.
|>>|| No. 15641
>like dogs with a bone, creeping out of the woodwork
I'm enjoying that mixed metaphor.
|>>|| No. 15643
>Some times this board is quiet as fuck and then the opportunity for woman-bashing arises and you're like dogs with a bone
I don't really see that being the case on here.
I've been coming here since 2013, and usually when threads get quiet, it's because somebody was either being a cunt in the last post or because some aspie shat up a thread with some entirely unrelatable drivel.
And not all complaints about women are woman bashing. If somebody has a legitimate complaint about a particular woman and wants to vent on here, then I see no reason to tell them not to. Particularly not because some delicate little snowflake flower of a woman might take offence reading it.
If you can't tolerate other people criticising members of your gender, then the Internet just isn't for you. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, go home and suck on your thumb until you are mature enough to come back.
|>>|| No. 15645
>usually when threads get quiet, it's because somebody was either being a cunt in the last post or because some aspie shat up a thread with some entirely unrelatable drivel.
Ah, the irony.
|>>|| No. 15646
Yeah, how small exactly are these dogs? Tiny dogs? Microscopic dogs? I'm intrigued
|>>|| No. 15649
I remember only once a thread about "being a man" here and it was quickly shat on by the "what about women?" Question, and treating any discussion of men's virtues like it was some sort of weird indirect attack on women.
|>>|| No. 15650
>and treating any discussion of men's virtues like it was some sort of weird indirect attack on women.
Worse even, the notion that men can very well be strong and bold is dismissed by some third wave feminists as antiquated gender stereotypes that do no favours to sensitive, emotional men who are not like that. It is seen as part of the (pseudo) phaenomenon of "toxic masculinity".
In reality, it's a dismantling of classic male virtues. You are not allowed to be bold and strong as a bloke, because it puts pressure on manlets who never will be either of those.
The irony is that in real life, women still want bold and strong men as partners, both romantic and sexual. Classic masculinity always wins, and women don't favour wimps. Because it is hardwired in them, the same way that men are hardwired, by and large, to seek out particularly feminine women, no matter if they have a chance with them or not.
|>>|| No. 15661
Yeah alright Sargon. Enough of the pseudointellectual anti-feminism, we aren't going to buy your testosterone cream.
|>>|| No. 15663
He's not wrong, his post reminded me of a Guardian (of course) article that explicitly said women are as physically strong as men before proceeding to talk about why our definition of 'strong' is wrong.
Nutters the lot of them.
|>>|| No. 15664
Obviously it's rather daft to say women on average are better at deadlifts than men or anything like that, but there's plenty of merit to pointing out that women live longer, suffer pain and illness less harshly and can do childbirth and that. I'd say that's all 'physical strength'.
We could just go back to saying humans are strong in general, like. We did manage to fight everything else on the planet.
|>>|| No. 15665
Gaurdian news article or Gaurdian opinion bin? The distinction is paramount.
|>>|| No. 15666
This isn't to detract from any biological qualities women do have, but I suspect that the greater longevity in lifespan statistics of women versus men owes at least in part to the smaller chance, on average, of death or injury at work, less chance of violent assault or suicide, and less risky behaviour generally.
It irks me a bit when people take stats at face value. Even my favourite economists come out with phrases like "the hardier constitution of women". Fair enough, it may be true, but you can't just take lifespan alone.
I would be interested to read about the illness and pain comparisons you mention, though.
|>>|| No. 15669
>A 65 year old woman would expect to live about three years longer than a 65 year old man, so the difference in life expectancy isn't just young men doing daft things.
Good point on loneliness, but this does presume that none of the daft stuff men do in their youth have physical or mental effects going into their sixties.
|>>|| No. 15674
I think the biggest impact on longevity is your lifestyle. Men tend to not look after themselves as well as women, by and large. In general, women go to the NHS-recommended regular health check ups more than men, and they also go to see a doctor sooner when something seems to actually be wrong.
Also, men are more drawn to savoury foods and saturated fats in their diets than women, who generally prefer lighter and vegetarian dishes. Men also drink loads more beer and alcohol than women and also smoke more.
What also has an effect is that it is usually men who work physically demanding jobs such as builders or technicians. That kind of work puts loads of stress on your body as well over the decades.
You can see that in men who reach very old age, i.e. 80 or 90 or even beyond. Most of them looked after themselves well their whole lives, and they were generally educated knowledge workers in the widest sense with quiet desk jobs during their professional lives.
So even if you were born male, there is a lot you can do to influence your individual life expectancy.
On the other hand, genes also play a role in your resilience. There are people who smoked their entire lives - in moderation - and drank a pint or two every night and still lived to be 90. It is thought that they simply carry more robust genes than most people and are thus able to withstand environmental stress better.
What you shouldn't do is assume that you will be one of those people, and smoke and drink your whole life hoping that it's not going to have an effect on you.
|>>|| No. 15675
I'm convinced in the world of medical marvel we live in, that the main difference between someone who lives to 80 or 90 Vs someone who dies earlier is mostly luck. Obviously being healthy will help, but if the NHS can keep someone like my grandad going, a career fireman who smoked 40 a day until he was 65, then I'm convinced a couple of cheeseburgers isn't going to be what stops me from hitting that age.
Physical jobs definitely knack you up though. Most head chefs look about twenty years older than they are. Ramsey's barely 50 ffs.
|>>|| No. 15676
> Most head chefs
Ah, cheflad. Good to see you again.
Gordon Ramsay looks as old as he does because he's a fucking choleric who will jump in your face if your eggs are 30 seconds underboiled. That's a kind of disposition that ages you pretty fast.
At one of my old jobs, my boss was a bit like that. He was an uber demanding A-person who expected you to give 120 percent all the time, and yelled at you as a matter of principle if someting you did wasn't to his satisfaction. He was the main reason I quit. Because I didn't like getting shouted at for every minor slip up that I didn't manage to hide from him. The last I heard from that company was that he apparently had a near fatal heart attack on the job last year, at age 47.
At the other end of the spectrum, one of my good friends has a granddad who is 82 and worked his whole life as a higher-level public service employee. He is just one of the most relaxed, laid back and balanced people you will ever meet, and according to my friend, he has always been that way. And he is in very good health for his age, and until recently still rode his bicycle everywhere.
|>>|| No. 15680
What a load of shite - Gordon Ramsay is fit a fiddle. You can tell just by looking at him. He's a black belt in karate and an MMA cage fighter. Just cos he's got some lines on his face doesn't mean he has heart disease.
|>>|| No. 15681
His face tells the entire story. He looks at least 60. The only reason he's still sprightly is because he got out from actual cheffing about fifteen years ago, and has the money and time to do the training.
You'll never get a look at how destructive it is from the celebrities, because they're rich and not chefs any more. The rest of us are all buckled over, twisted gargoyles by about 35.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]