Washington State Gets Rid Of "sexist" Language

Iunno, if I was reading about hot, sweaty, kinky BDSM fetish sex...

Erm.. uhh..

...What were we talking about again?

Holt sh!t white knight alert. Quick find a princess to save you still have room left on your horse. Heck your not even using logic anymore. Your just inventing arguments to fight against now.

ALL WOMEN, without exception, are subject to hypergamy. It's not a rational choice, it's the 100+ million year old mating system kicking in. Only mate with males of higher value then herself to ensure best selection of DNA to pass on to children. Acquire a male to supply her with resources and support during gestation and difficult years of child rearing.

Those don't necessarily have to be the same male.

So basically women are the cause for all that is wrong in marriage and they should stick to being cooks, maids and devils in the sack to meet the mans needs while the man goes out and makes that money! Foolish women for thinking you could be something else or have an opinion!

Also, hypergamy is not without exception... If we're using personal examples as well then I need to look no further than down the hall to a woman who works here... she make considerably more money than her hubby (who doesn't work by the way)... I'm not sure how marrying an unemployed man is marying up...

By the way I don't know why a handful of people have referred to me as a feminist, I never claimed that. Just cause I'm a woman?

Surely it's a movement that has been fundamental in history though I would rather not be mixed with today's definition of it. While of course I support equality I don't know why I should be associated with fanatics of said movement. Just like there are imbecil male leaders with completely backwards ideas, there are also cretin women that are loud about it. If you(generic)let those kinds make you create a generalized view of the entire gender then you're either very close-minded or propaganda gets to you very easily.

Equality=/=privilegies. But, watch carefully now, cause this is something that usually goes wrong in these debates:
If you are defending men rights do not say "if she can punch me why can't I punch her too?", rather say "if she can sue me, why can't I?". While it might seem the same, it is not, the former only causes the conversation to go up in flames because it's like supporting an eye for an eye, while instead what should be supported is equal tutelage.

But more importantly, making claims that all women are liars or thieves, or other things like that is in no way constructive. It only shows you are either bitter about something or stupid.

The moral of the story is, if you try to become something accomplished as a woman, you'll get mistreated, then raped, and then turned into a tree by magic.

I don't wanna be a tree.

What if it was the Mana Tree?

Still a tree. D:

Strawman and appeal to absurdity. You guys can't win and are now resorting to shaming and personal attacks.

I have stated several times that the social system we have is a result of enforcing monogamy and suppressing female hypergamy, which is part of their biological mate selection system. It also enforced monogamy on males and suppressed their mate selection system (polygamy).

That social system doesn't necessarily have to exist, it can be removed and replaced. If we're going to go about the business of removing and replacing it then we need to address the reasons for the creation of the first one.

There are two distinct versions of feminism, they both carry the same name but have different agendas. The 2nd wave feminists were about female equality, right to vote, removing artificial obstructions to jobs, that kind of stuff. That I support 100% as I subscribe to an egalitarian worldview. The other form of feminism started in the 90's and has a far more militant tone, essentially it's lead by man haters with it's agenda being to reduce the power men have rather then seek equality. It essentially exists to subjugate men to female imperative. That is the version that I whole heartily believe is evil and a detriment to any society. It does nothing but spread hatred and ridicules men.

All feminism has done is remove female obligation and male privilege while maintaining male obligation and female privilege. The fact that so many adamantly refuse to recognize female privilege even when presented with clear evidence is a testament to it's power.

My personal beliefs is that all gender related rules, laws, regulations and policy's be erased. Child custody is 50/50 unless one parent can demonstrate that they could provide the most stable home. Complete abolishment of alimony, women can now hold jobs they don't need to vampire off a mans money. Removal of gender from college applications, workplace applications, and all scholarship or financial forms. I would also remove race / ethnicity from all those forms also. Everything is 100% merit based. No bonus points for anyone.

That's the only way to restore balance.

Who am I white knighting? My own argument?

The reality is that feminism before all the stupid talking heads is the pursuit of equality (politically, socially, economically) between the sexes and the freedom of women to make their own choices free of the patriarchal social system. What women do with their freedoms is their own damn business defined by their actions.

Women can and always have been as ruthless as men. The idea that you think all women think in terms of evolutionary, financial or sexual desire is a reflection of yourself and not the diversity of an entire sex who all have their own priorities and reasons for them. I'll credit you that some women do just want a man to do everything for them but you have feminism to thank for women getting off their *** and aspiring to be more than eternal support staff.

Some women have a low sex drive, some women believe in 'true love' (whatever that is), some women go for guys to dominate, some women have no interest in children and some women have no interest in pairing off with men at all. For all your talk of evolution you seem to forget all about diversity. Your dogmatic adherence to your own sermons leaves zero room for exceptions and us humans are all about exceptions.

You made the classic mistake of assuming that money is the only indicator of status.

Women's hypergamy doesn't operate on the conscious rational level, it operates on the emotional subconscious level. She merely needs to "feel" he has higher value then her.

That includes but is not limited to,

Physical Appearance (a broke greek god gets tons of sex)
Confidence / Aggressiveness / Dominance
Leadership / Decisiveness
Access to Resources (money / connections)
Sexual ability (huge d!ck / great in bed)
Emotion support / validation / stability

Also a women doesn't need to get everything she wants from a single male. She can and will seek different things from different males. The only time she'll jump ship is if one male no longer provides sufficient value to be worth her time (she can get the same value or more of it elsewhere).

See I came from a reverse household. Mother worked late at nights while father stayed home (injury suffered in Vietnam). My mother made more money then my father yet my father ran the house and provided the masculine traits. My father made spending decisions and was the leader, even though he wasn't the bread winner.

you missed my point entirely.

These dudes split up with this "crazy ***" because they couldn't imagine living there, yet abandon thier children to that fate. I think that speaks to the frailty of modern men's resolution, & that we are just as guilty in the "perfectionist" model of a relationship that you seem to believe only women are capable of.

I probably shouldn't say this in a thread about feminism, but guys need to quit being such pussies & running away at the first sign of a challenge.

How is this any different than the internal criteria that men use when choosing a partner? Each individual person has a set of requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to seek out the ideal mate and it need not be rational when emotions are involved.

You seek to paint women as vampires when men are equally capable of vampiric behavior. Both sexes have unrealistic expectations of the other informed by our societal projections of the other sex.

it's also why it has little to no traction with mainstream society, & is a fringe division that really holds no sway over anyone, & thus isn't really relavant here, now is it?

Are you actually serious?

O wow do our parents *** us up.

THIS.

New Feminism is about as relevant as the New Black Panthers. Their dogmatic adherence to a culture of victimhood undercuts so potently any potential argument they may have had. The desire to erect unrealistic and unequal social constructs fails on every level and is called out by anyone who can cut through the overly emotional drivel.

Your now spinning in circles.

Essentially everything you've said is fem-centric. Your going off about what females want but not about what males want. That's known as female privilege btw. You can't worry about only 50% of the human population (actually more now).

Right now feminism is not about it's about expanding female privilege.


Never F*cking Existed.

Both sex's were forced to comply within a single social system. That system is not male focused. There is not a room full of white males in smoking robs sitting back making up rules to "keep women down". The "system" was created not to "keep men in power" but to maintain balance and was made 20,000+ years ago. Male obligation is ever bit as onerous as female obligation. Females were not subjugated. If you want to see subjugation then look no farther then recent slavery examples. Females were protected and provided for as the more valuable member of the species. That protection and provision came at a cost of personal freedoms (sound like a recent social debate), something liberals should be familiar with. Meanwhile men who "enjoyed" those personal freedoms also were inflicted with the obligations to provide for and protect those females. Men are the less valuable and easiest replaced member of the species, their disposable and protecting them is not necessary.

Convincing everyone that "it's all the fault of men" was one of the greatest bullsh!t jobs in history.

If your going to "liberate" women from the restrictions on personal freedoms (female obligation) then you need to also "liberate" men from they're obligations.

If a female can chose to keep or abort a child, then the male can chose whether to support it or not.

Equality swings both ways.

They didn't abandon their children. The state awarded the women primary custody by default.

BULLSH!T

Don't know how often I have to say it. The "equality' version of feminism died in the 90's. The one paraded around today is the militant one.

Remember when I posted that picture on how this thread is "freaking beautiful"? Well, I think I can post the rest as a thread description:

The oppressors are always the victims, saevel .

More spinning in circles.

Your attempting to reframe the debate in an emotional manor. It's very dishonest of you. Also the tactic of teaming up and using personal slights / insults doesn't work, I really don't care what random anonymous people think of me on the internet. Hell I don't' even care what people standing around me care. Shaming tactics have zero effect.

I explained female hypergamy and value determination. Obviously males also have a sexual value determine system. The existence of that male system does not invalidate female hypergamy nor is it incompatible with the female sexual strategy & biological imperative.

The primary difference between them is that males will mate both up and down. A male does not feel emotionally driven to separate from a mate of lessor value. This is evidenced by the sheer number of men trying to save their marriage to fat b1tchy women. Males are instinctively driven to provide protection for women & children, results of 100+ million years of evolution. Women are under no such instinctual drive, pretty much their entire sexual strategy is to select the best DNA for their children and to acquire as much resources as possible to best raise those children.

Males only have a sexual value determine system?

And holy ***... do you actually believe the things you say?

I think of it more like this:


NO U, NO U, NO U, NO U...

Just because someone slaps the word "New" onto a movement doesn't mean the original movement is invalidated or the people doing work suddenly don't exist. The definition still holds even if you want to slander the word which is effective in conditioning people but not in changing reality.

Feminism has been internalized by society as we see more reaching for the upper echelons of industry, demanding more variety and flexibility in men and taking ownership of their own social challenges rather than leaving it up to men. Most women recoil from associating with feminism because the term has been hijacked by extremists the same way Islam has been hijacked by jihadists. Regardless of the hijacking the adherents still practice, the old ways still exist but the new definition is in the spotlight.

Is it better or worse if I just avoid the situation to begin with?

I'm very much aware of the fact that I'm not cut out for the responsibility of maintaining a marriage or even a relationship, so I don't bother putting myself in the dating pool. Is that better or worse than dating people and subsequently having it all fall apart and everyone goes home upset.

Are all men only allowed to marry down since all women marry up? Stupid question but just curious...

This makes no sense. There were no oppressors.

There was no them vs us, or male vs female bullsh!t going on. Millions of years ago evolution decided that females needed to be protected while males were disposable. It decided on this because this method provides for lots of babies. Which is evolutions only desire. Eon's passed and we eventually developed the capacity to think, reason and eventually talk to each other. Soon after we discovered that we could plant our own food and males (being the disposable and more risk taking member) started acquiring property. That is when the social system we have today was built.

See what's not taught is that males died in mass quantities. Every time there was a war, or a plague, or raids, or anything that needed to be done, lots of males died. Some females died too, but ratios were extremely one sided. You want to build something? Throw lots of cheap males at it. You want to take over some land, throw MORE cheap males at it. Oh look there is a horde coming our way, throw lots of cheap males at it. We need food? Males have to go out and risk life & limb to get it.

Does that sound like an oppressor to you? Is the near certainty of death a "privilege"? Is the fact that your value to your species comes from you risking your life and doing crazy sh!t a "privilege"? Females have value from just being born with a uterus. Males have to prove their value, otherwise they end up on the genetic trash heap.

Now sometimes a male wins and when they "win" they win big. It's like a lottery, most will fail but the few who do hit the top end up making it big time. This is what leads to the mislabeling of "patriarchy". As males are the only ones pulling the casino's lever (and paying for it in blood), their the only ones who can hit the jackpot (or die trying).

What gets me is feminists want the right to attempt to hit the jackpot, without the blood and death part. That's like telling the casino you want to gamble and win but don't want to pay any loss's.