Who Agrees Fourth Wave Feminism is Toxic Femininity And Should Be Abolished?

[Trausti]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Incel is meant to insult a group of men who have difficulties finding women. The incel insult is mostly used by feminists or people who agree with the feminists. This is just as insulting to men as the "spinster" label was to women in the early days of women's suffrage. People called these early feminists "losers who couldn't find a man" and now we've come full circle and women are doing the same insults to men.

Anyone else find this disgusting?

Yes, but there is more to it than that. There are groups of guys online who really are rather depraved and hateful of women. Sadly, society paints all incels with that brush.

Incel is a term (coined by a woman actually) meaning involuntarily celibate. It means a man or woman who is celibate against their will, meaning that they can't get laid. That covers a very broad spectrum of men and women, varying in reasons why, from hatred and hostility towards women (so of course they don't have relationships) to the mentally and the physically incapable. I feel for the latter incels, painted as evil monsters just because they are so mentally shy or disabled or ugly that they can't find a mate, and also presumed male... there are female incels as well.

It is sad that people who are essentially self identified losers, and may be actual losers in social society, are kicked when down and villified for it, and that no empathy is extended to them by mainstream society, so they wind up on message boards where they can find some empathy, but the people they find empathy from are those that encourage them to spit back at the world in hatred. Used to be such people who just be lonely depressed shut ins, but with the internet now they talk to each other and push each other more and more towards the edge of some truly ugly ways of thinking.

To combat this, I think a little empathy and kindness towards the social outcasts and losers in society could go a long way. That actually goes well beyond incels, and to all who are rejected, shunned, and recoiled from. Its a very basic trope and one based in reality that such people are prone to turning into monsters.

This lady has it right:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdPe8OkWmt4[/youtube]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-wave_feminism
...
Whereas earlier feminists fought for and earned women greater liberation, individualism, and social mobility, the fourth wave furthers the agenda by calling for justice against assault and harassment, for equal pay for equal work, and for bodily autonomy.[4] Fourth-wave feminists often use print, news, and social media to collaborate and mobilize, speak against abusers of power, and provide equal opportunities for girls and women. In addition to advocating for women, fourth-wave feminists believe that boys and men should have greater opportunities to express their emotions and feelings freely, to present themselves as they wish, and to be engaged parents to their children.
...

Oh noes! We can't have THAT! Demonize! Demonize! Demonize the Fourth Wave Feminists! Toxic feminism! Toxic feminism! Gurgle! Drool!

Well, hey! What can I do but cheer on these Fourth Wave Feminists? I hope that, wearing their cute pink pussy hats, they turn out at the polls and sweep Trump out of office. And maybe even flip the damned Senate. I for one welcome our new Fourth Wave Feminist overlords.

The big distinction of the "fourth wave" is the widespread use of social media. First and second wave (stupid terminology) feminists have been fighting against assault, harassment, equal pay and bodily autonomy for decades. It isn't anything new. What's new is the way they go about it, and the technology now in their hands. I'm not sure why Half-Life is going on about "fourth wave feminists" instead of just toxic feminism. No "wave" of feminism has to by definition be toxic, and toxic feminism isn't restricted to any "wave" either.

 

[Half-Life]

Incel is meant to insult a group of men who have difficulties finding women. The incel insult is mostly used by feminists or people who agree with the feminists. This is just as insulting to men as the "spinster" label was to women in the early days of women's suffrage. People called these early feminists "losers who couldn't find a man" and now we've come full circle and women are doing the same insults to men.

Anyone else find this disgusting?

Yes, but there is more to it than that. There are groups of guys online who really are rather depraved and hateful of women. Sadly, society paints all incels with that brush.

Incel is a term (coined by a woman actually) meaning involuntarily celibate. It means a man or woman who is celibate against their will, meaning that they can't get laid. That covers a very broad spectrum of men and women, varying in reasons why, from hatred and hostility towards women (so of course they don't have relationships) to the mentally and the physically incapable. I feel for the latter incels, painted as evil monsters just because they are so mentally shy or disabled or ugly that they can't find a mate, and also presumed male... there are female incels as well.

It is sad that people who are essentially self identified losers, and may be actual losers in social society, are kicked when down and villified for it, and that no empathy is extended to them by mainstream society, so they wind up on message boards where they can find some empathy, but the people they find empathy from are those that encourage them to spit back at the world in hatred. Used to be such people who just be lonely depressed shut ins, but with the internet now they talk to each other and push each other more and more towards the edge of some truly ugly ways of thinking.

To combat this, I think a little empathy and kindness towards the social outcasts and losers in society could go a long way. That actually goes well beyond incels, and to all who are rejected, shunned, and recoiled from. Its a very basic trope and one based in reality that such people are prone to turning into monsters.

This lady has it right:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdPe8OkWmt4[/youtube]

There is some understanding there. Incels can be any race and any gender. That is why the mainstream media is dishonest and says incels are "angry white male losers who cant get a woman." They ignore other races and females, which makes them racist to assume they are only white. But, the media loves the anti-white narrative so they push it any way they can. Saying "a lonely asian girl incel might shoot up the Joker screenings!" doesn't get as much "Pop!" to the headlines and would get them called racist by the left. So, they push it as whites, who the left hates, and thus you can be racist against them!

 

[Toni]

Incel is meant to insult a group of men who have difficulties finding women. The incel insult is mostly used by feminists or people who agree with the feminists. This is just as insulting to men as the "spinster" label was to women in the early days of women's suffrage. People called these early feminists "losers who couldn't find a man" and now we've come full circle and women are doing the same insults to men.

Anyone else find this disgusting?

Yes, but there is more to it than that. There are groups of guys online who really are rather depraved and hateful of women. Sadly, society paints all incels with that brush.

Incel is a term (coined by a woman actually) meaning involuntarily celibate. It means a man or woman who is celibate against their will, meaning that they can't get laid. That covers a very broad spectrum of men and women, varying in reasons why, from hatred and hostility towards women (so of course they don't have relationships) to the mentally and the physically incapable. I feel for the latter incels, painted as evil monsters just because they are so mentally shy or disabled or ugly that they can't find a mate, and also presumed male... there are female incels as well.

It is sad that people who are essentially self identified losers, and may be actual losers in social society, are kicked when down and villified for it, and that no empathy is extended to them by mainstream society, so they wind up on message boards where they can find some empathy, but the people they find empathy from are those that encourage them to spit back at the world in hatred. Used to be such people who just be lonely depressed shut ins, but with the internet now they talk to each other and push each other more and more towards the edge of some truly ugly ways of thinking.

To combat this, I think a little empathy and kindness towards the social outcasts and losers in society could go a long way. That actually goes well beyond incels, and to all who are rejected, shunned, and recoiled from. Its a very basic trope and one based in reality that such people are prone to turning into monsters.

This lady has it right:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdPe8OkWmt4[/youtube]

There is some understanding there. Incels can be any race and any gender. That is why the mainstream media is dishonest and says incels are "angry white male losers who cant get a woman." They ignore other races and females, which makes them racist to assume they are only white. But, the media loves the anti-white narrative so they push it any way they can. Saying "a lonely asian girl incel might shoot up the Joker screenings!" doesn't get as much "Pop!" to the headlines and would get them called racist by the left. So, they push it as whites, who the left hates, and thus you can be racist against them!

I don't really recall many Asian girls shooting up movie theaters.

That seems more like a personal fantasy of yours than a real thing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is some understanding there. Incels can be any race and any gender. That is why the mainstream media is dishonest and says incels are "angry white male losers who cant get a woman." They ignore other races and females, which makes them racist to assume they are only white. But, the media loves the anti-white narrative so they push it any way they can. Saying "a lonely asian girl incel might shoot up the Joker screenings!" doesn't get as much "Pop!" to the headlines and would get them called racist by the left. So, they push it as whites, who the left hates, and thus you can be racist against them!

I don't really recall many Asian girls shooting up movie theaters.

That seems more like a personal fantasy of yours than a real thing.

Half Life can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point was that Joker isn't particularly likely to inspire any incel to violence. The hoopla around it helped gain viewers no doubt for the film, but nothing about the film was about incels.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This whole incels - joker thing started with posts by angry, demented incels posting online about adopting the Joker as a hero to their cause and hinting they would like to follow his lead and start attacking their 'enemies'. Since we have had actual instances of incels going on rampages and killing people, it is not something that could be ignored.

 

[Half-Life]

This whole incels - joker thing started with posts by angry, demented incels posting online about adopting the Joker as a hero to their cause and hinting they would like to follow his lead and start attacking their 'enemies'. Since we have had actual instances of incels going on rampages and killing people, it is not something that could be ignored.

Lots of black gangsters grew up worshiping Tony Montana as a hero. Not a peep from leftists.

Ironically, the left's big problem with that movie coming out today would be that a Straight White Male is playing a Cuban.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gangsters and terrorists are different.

 

[J842P]

Gangsters and terrorists are different.

Um, yeah, gangsters kill a lot more people.

 

[Patooka]

Lots of black gangsters grew up worshiping Tony Montana as a hero. Not a peep from leftists.

Good point.

Except apart from the fact that you are [claiming something that is not true].

 

[Half-Life]

Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

"If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

"If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle

Ideally everything in life would be fair.

Certainly, it is not fair that women are not as strong as men, on average. Hell, it is not fair that my own androgen resistance means that I could not even start to attempt to get a stereotypically "masculine" body, or that the only way I could get a nice ass and thick hips would be to supplement with estrogen and accept the emotional and personality impacts that would create.

It is not fair that I cannot get pregnant and bear and five birth to a child.

There are certainly a great many changes that would occur to the human condition if I had any say in bringing such things about.

Life didn't evolve for "fair". Pre-social evolution didn't care about "fair".

And so of course social ethics has to work with what it has: shitty, sexual asymmetry.

So in an imperfect world, yeah, we have policies that have to acknowledge that imperfect reality as it is.

The father should get a say; whether they accept being a father. Society should havw a burden to accept this consent to Parenthood or lack thereof, through supporting the mother to the best of our abilities, should she decide to be a mother anyway. We should educate our children of the value of acting as a parent regardless of the genetics of the child you are raising and decry those who preach against loving some child not 'of their loins'.

Those are toxic realities. But reality is sometimes toxic. You, not I, believe that a "loving" God created those toxic realities.

 

[Half-Life]

Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

"If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle

Ideally everything in life would be fair.

Certainly, it is not fair that women are not as strong as men, on average. Hell, it is not fair that my own androgen resistance means that I could not even start to attempt to get a stereotypically "masculine" body, or that the only way I could get a nice ass and thick hips would be to supplement with estrogen and accept the emotional and personality impacts that would create.

It is not fair that I cannot get pregnant and bear and five birth to a child.

There are certainly a great many changes that would occur to the human condition if I had any say in bringing such things about.

Life didn't evolve for "fair". Pre-social evolution didn't care about "fair".

And so of course social ethics has to work with what it has: shitty, sexual asymmetry.

So in an imperfect world, yeah, we have policies that have to acknowledge that imperfect reality as it is.

The father should get a say; whether they accept being a father. Society should havw a burden to accept this consent to Parenthood or lack thereof, through supporting the mother to the best of our abilities, should she decide to be a mother anyway. We should educate our children of the value of acting as a parent regardless of the genetics of the child you are raising and decry those who preach against loving some child not 'of their loins'.

Those are toxic realities. But reality is sometimes toxic. You, not I, believe that a "loving" God created those toxic realities.

Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's talk about other toxic parts of feminism. A woman decides to abort her child. The father gets NO SAY whatsoever. Equality? Nope. How is that fair?

A woman decides to keep the child. The father is forced to pay child support. How is that equality? Why does the man need to pay for the child the woman chose to have? What happened to, "I don't need no man! I can make it on my own!" Yep, until it involves getting free money from the man. Then, the woman will gladly take it and claim they can't survive without the man's help. Pretty sick toxic stuff.

"If she can abort it, I can at least abandon it." - Dave Chappelle

Ideally everything in life would be fair.

Certainly, it is not fair that women are not as strong as men, on average. Hell, it is not fair that my own androgen resistance means that I could not even start to attempt to get a stereotypically "masculine" body, or that the only way I could get a nice ass and thick hips would be to supplement with estrogen and accept the emotional and personality impacts that would create.

It is not fair that I cannot get pregnant and bear and five birth to a child.

There are certainly a great many changes that would occur to the human condition if I had any say in bringing such things about.

Life didn't evolve for "fair". Pre-social evolution didn't care about "fair".

And so of course social ethics has to work with what it has: shitty, sexual asymmetry.

So in an imperfect world, yeah, we have policies that have to acknowledge that imperfect reality as it is.

The father should get a say; whether they accept being a father. Society should havw a burden to accept this consent to Parenthood or lack thereof, through supporting the mother to the best of our abilities, should she decide to be a mother anyway. We should educate our children of the value of acting as a parent regardless of the genetics of the child you are raising and decry those who preach against loving some child not 'of their loins'.

Those are toxic realities. But reality is sometimes toxic. You, not I, believe that a "loving" God created those toxic realities.

Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.

Ah, so you think that one example where our codified ethics of our laws makes some attempt at making concessions to the realities of sexual asymmetry means that what? All of our laws are beholden to that same asymmetrical concession?

I agree, things shouldn't work like that. Then, I also agree that every fatherless child should be supported by the state that allows a father to not be present in the lives of their children. It would certainly be better than the reality of living in a society where a deadbeat can run out on their child and stuff their children of the support they need both emotionally and financially, as exists today.

Sadly it doesn't work like that.

As it is, you literally argue for a world where women are denied the right to abort a child. It's almost like you and everyone like you want to deny women even this one power over their own bodies, as if you hate women and love men.

 

[Half-Life]

Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.

Ah, so you think that one example where our codified ethics of our laws makes some attempt at making concessions to the realities of sexual asymmetry means that what? All of our laws are beholden to that same asymmetrical concession?

I agree, things shouldn't work like that. Then, I also agree that every fatherless child should be supported by the state that allows a father to not be present in the lives of their children. It would certainly be better than the reality of living in a society where a deadbeat can run out on their child and stuff their children of the support they need both emotionally and financially, as exists today.

Sadly it doesn't work like that.

As it is, you literally argue for a world where women are denied the right to abort a child. It's almost like you and everyone like you want to deny women even this one power over their own bodies, as if you hate women and love men.

The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

Think!

 

[Jarhyn]

Nowhere in that ramble did you address my point.

The point is that if we live in a "patriarchy" where "society hates women," why are men DEMANDED to pay child support and give free money to the woman for 18 years? Seems like that's FAVORING women and HATING men.

A man should be able to go to court and say, "Your honor, I did not want to have this child. The woman said, "Screw you! It's my decision!" and she had the baby anyway. I don't want to pay for a baby I never wanted in the first place. The woman can do it. She chose to have the baby."

Sadly, it doesn't work like this, despite the fact we live in a society that supposedly hates women and loves men.

Ah, so you think that one example where our codified ethics of our laws makes some attempt at making concessions to the realities of sexual asymmetry means that what? All of our laws are beholden to that same asymmetrical concession?

I agree, things shouldn't work like that. Then, I also agree that every fatherless child should be supported by the state that allows a father to not be present in the lives of their children. It would certainly be better than the reality of living in a society where a deadbeat can run out on their child and stuff their children of the support they need both emotionally and financially, as exists today.

Sadly it doesn't work like that.

As it is, you literally argue for a world where women are denied the right to abort a child. It's almost like you and everyone like you want to deny women even this one power over their own bodies, as if you hate women and love men.

The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

Think!

Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is

 

[Half-Life]

The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

Think!

Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is

You don't agree that if poor people stopped getting benefits, they would spend their money on the basic needs for the family instead of booze and drugs?

If the families basic needs are taken care of because of the government, now they have extra money to party! Why do you think poor people are the most likely to do drugs and smoke cigarettes? Because whenever they have extra money, they run to the liquor store.

 

[Patooka]

The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

Think!

Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is

You don't agree that if poor people stopped getting benefits, they would spend their money on the basic needs for the family instead of booze and drugs?

If the families basic needs are taken care of because of the government, now they have extra money to party! Why do you think poor people are the most likely to do drugs and smoke cigarettes? Because whenever they have extra money, they run to the liquor store.

You ever going to back up your assertions with any facts, champ? Any studies that back up your claim?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The state supporting the child is what gets us into this mess in the first place! They have children irresponsibly knowing, "Well I'll get government benefits anyway!" It's enabling by the government. Why do you think some women have 10 kids? The more kids you have, the more money you get from the state! If they took away the benefits, they would think twice before having kids.

If a poor woman has $50 on her, but gets food stamps and welfare benefits, she can use that $50 for booze and drugs now. If there were no benefits, she would have to put that $50 toward the food and stuff that her benefits do not cover anymore.

Think!

Ah yes, the infamous welfare queen myth. And I suppose if a Christian had a few hundred bucks that they could spend on helping the poor, imprisoned, or naked they would spend it on a second computer and a VPN or proxy, right?

Studies overwhelmingly show that when someone has public assistance, they spend it on their cost of living.

Instead of assuming dishonest behavior from others, perhaps as a symptom of reflecting personal issues on others, perhaps you should THINK and actually take a look at what the reality of the situation is

You don't agree that if poor people stopped getting benefits, they would spend their money on the basic needs for the family instead of booze and drugs?

I grew up poor, my mother was on welfare and food stamps some of the time. She did not ever spend money on booze and drugs.

If the families basic needs are taken care of ,,,

Our basic needs were not taken care of because the conservatives like Ronnie Raygun kept reducing funding.

...because of the government, now they have extra money to party!

My mother did not party. We rarely even had birthday cakes on our birthdays.

Why do you think poor people are the most likely to do drugs and smoke cigarettes?

I am just speculating here, but perhaps sometimes drug addiction is a significant factor in causing poverty. But not vice versa. As for my mother, she was suffering from physical and mental health problems that got progressively worse over time. She had severe arthritis, digestive problems, and unofficially schizophrenia. She died at 55 years old.

Because whenever they have extra money, they run to the liquor store.

I would appreciate it if you didn't make counterfactual claims about my mother.