OK... so there are no women on here...

[mrmphilllll]

Well I picked a good day to read this thread lol Happy Friday Ladies!

 

[KayakJack]

There are a lot more women here than you may suspect. Most of the women I’ve talked with privately don’t post publicly at all. If anything, they may have 2-3 posts back from when they initially joined and were still unbroken and filled with optimism about the potential here.

Unfortunately, the drooling, entitled, grossly misogynistic, selfish, dull witted, humorless, perverts that make up 75% of the male population here pushed them underground.

So while they’re here, they‘ve adjusted their settings so they’re invisible, and you’ll never know they’re here unless you manage to post something intriguing enough to make them want to reach out to you first.

This saddens me to no end.

I grew up in a highly dysfunctional Irish Catholic family, with everything that entails - alcoholism, rage, guilt, shame, etc. The women in my family were the only things that kept me (relatively) sane.

This thread reminds me of conversations with so many male family members before I broke away, still firmly entrenched in their insanity. Always self-righteously playing the victim, while tilting at their own personal windmills. Better to burn countless calories defending their honor/intelligence/integrity than admitting they might just be part of the problem. Or the problem.

What's not to love about women? And why would any decent man be threatened by one? I LOVE me some strong, smart women!

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

while i admit to being a man, you know nothing about me at all. i am not a problem or the problem. i find it offensive when anyone stereotypes any group. i just like to try to understand why someone is how they are. i hate it that your experiences have brought you to your place. maybe refrain from the idea of referring to anyone as "such as yourself" when you clearly know absolutely nothing about me. i hope you can get some help.

Oh no, that's where you're wrong. We know an awful lot about you from just these two posts.

First, you're kinda bad at writing. I'd say maybe you pulled a 125 verbal on your SATs – if you sat for your SATs, that is. This also probably means you're supporting yourself these days – enough to pay for internet access anyway – with some manner of job that doesn't require a lot of thinking or writing (two things which, judging from the content and quality and style choices in your posts, you are very far from being a master of). Bus driver? Or, maybe Uber/Lyft? Gas station attendant/convenience store clerk? Grocery store bag boy?

Second, you don't know what the word "stereotype" means. I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that exactly zero women on these boards have said anything remotely stereotypical of men.

Zero. You understand this concept, yes?

Third, I think it's sort of silly that you tried to back away from your initial point of offense with this half-assed sympathy routine, where you declare you "hate it that [this thread's women's] experiences have brought [them] to [their] place." Oh I'm so sure, because your original post was just overflowing with sympathy for these poor women. If you felt sorry for these smart, hilarious ladies for the bad experiences they'd been through, you might have taken a different initial approach.

But no, you came at them like the defensive limp-dicked chauvinist you are. You are an idiot and you are as transparent and fragile as glass – just like every shitty thing you've said here.

Go elsewhere, friend. Maybe get yourself some of that "help" you're prescribing. And a bottle or two of those little blue pills might help you stave off all those insecurities you're clearly drowning in.

 

[NorthernVAM]

Oh no, that's where you're wrong. We know an awful lot about you from just these two posts.

First, you're kinda bad at writing. I'd say maybe you pulled a 125 verbal on your SATs – if you sat for your SATs, that is. This also probably means you're supporting yourself these days – enough to pay for internet access anyway – with some manner of job that doesn't require a lot of thinking or writing (two things which, judging from the content and quality and style choices in your posts, you are very far from being a master of). Bus driver? Or, maybe Uber/Lyft? Gas station attendant/convenience store clerk? Grocery store bag boy?

Second, you don't know what the word "stereotype" means. I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that exactly zero women on these boards have said anything remotely stereotypical of men.

Zero. You understand this concept, yes?

Third, I think it's sort of silly that you tried to back away from your initial point of offense with this half-assed sympathy routine, where you declare you "hate it that [this thread's women's] experiences have brought [them] to [their] place." Oh I'm so sure, because your original post was just overflowing with sympathy for these poor women. If you felt sorry for these smart, hilarious ladies for the bad experiences they'd been through, you might have taken a different initial approach.

But no, you came at them like the defensive limp-dicked chauvinist you are. You are an idiot and you are as transparent and fragile as glass – just like every shitty thing you've said here.

Go elsewhere, friend. Maybe get yourself some of that "help" you're prescribing. And a bottle or two of those little blue pills might help you stave off all those insecurities you're clearly drowning in.

Oh .. I have to say that I loved your response, mostly because it made me smile ... how you respond to others also speaks volumes about you ...

So, on the subject of SAT .. you do know that the lowest score on the verbal section of the SAT is 200, or at least it was back when I took it, and that's one of the reasons you post made me smile. I'm assuming that if took the SAT's you know the scoring scale, and so the 125 comment makes me wonder?

On the subject of occupation, my presumption is that you were trying to insult the person you aimed it at, first by implying that they weren't intelligent enough to score above the lowest possible score on the SAT, and then to go on to say that they were in a job that didn't require any writing skills, implying that the people who choose those occupations are illiterate or couldn't do well on the SATs. Your opinion there seems to be somewhat elitist, which is amusing to me since it's just more evidence of your overall sense that you are somehow better than people who maybe "different" from you, or hold different opinions, or different occupations.

If this were a debate society, and you were trying to represent your ideas, I don't think you'd score very well, mostly because you avoid debate and hurl insults, which again, in my opinion is a sign that your beliefs are shallow, or hollow, or just plain empty. In other words, you have no ability to respond with well thought out ideas, so you wind up just saying things that are designed to stir up emotions and drive the conversation away from the original topic. It's a classic strategy to change the topic when you don't want to deal with it -- and in some respects, it's kind of fighting dirty if someone takes the bait.

The other thing that is totally hysterical about your insults is that they're all about "sexual impotence", and for a male who claims to believe in feminism, somehow you think that it is "insulting" to another male to call him "limp dicked". That would only be seen as an insult to someone who believes that a "hard dick" is a sign of power, masculinity, or something of that nature.

Your insults truly expose how you subconsciously think ... which you have to admit, is entertaining .. don't you think?

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Oh .. I have to say that I loved your response, mostly because it made me smile ... how you respond to others also speaks volumes about you ...

I would say, yes, I agree with this statement.

So, on the subject of SAT .. you do know that the lowest score on the verbal section of the SAT is 200, or at least it was back when I took it, and that's one of the reasons you post made me smile. I'm assuming that if [you] took the SAT's you know the scoring scale, and so the 125 comment makes me wonder?

lol No it doesn't. You correctly guess below that I implied he scored lower than was possible. Your feigned ignorance to rhetorical effect utterly fails to impress.

On the subject of occupation, my presumption is that you were trying to insult the person you aimed it at, first by implying that they weren't intelligent enough to score above the lowest possible score on the SAT, and then to go on to say that they were in a job that didn't require any writing skills, implying that the people who choose those occupations are illiterate or couldn't do well on the SATs. Your opinion there seems to be somewhat elitist, which is amusing to me since it's just more evidence of your overall sense that you are somehow better than people who maybe "different" from you, or hold different opinions, or different occupations.

You are absolutely correct to jump me for making insinuations about certain professions. I have no defense for that petty barb. But, that said, I absolutely will not to back down from otherwise attacking both IsItBad and his... argument? Because it/he was/is both wrong *and* stupid.

If this were a debate society, and you were trying to represent your ideas, I don't think you'd score very well,

For the record, I scored just fine in debate, don't you worry your pretty little head about me!

mostly because you avoid debate and hurl insults,

If we're talking about avoiding debate, I want to note that you presented your exegesis on sexism with a number of statements about basic human anthropology that appeared to be more based on your own personal opinions about caveman times rather than any actual fact. And I responded as such, and thus far you've yet to reply. I wonder, which seems the more like avoidance: ad hominem attack, or... just not saying anything as your fundamental lack of knowledge of human cultural development is torn down right in front of you?
So... if we're talking about scoring debate points, I come out a bit ahead of you there.
Also, this is not a debate society. This is a public forum on a sex chat site. So, yes, I hurl insults, and pick apart your arguments, both in equal measure.

which again, in my opinion is a sign that your beliefs are shallow, or hollow, or just plain empty.

lol My beliefs are shallow? This coming from the guy who doesn't believe in the feminist ideal of gender equality because of "bilogical differences," with no further explication necessary, apparently?
So... tits, therefore, 84¢ on the dollar against what a man brings home?

In other words, you have no ability to respond with well thought out ideas, so you wind up just saying things that are designed to stir up emotions and drive the conversation away from the original topic. It's a classic strategy to change the topic when you don't want to deal with it -- and in some respects, it's kind of fighting dirty if someone takes the bait.

lol While I sure don't mind fighting dirty – in my mind, is there any other way to fight a male chauvinist? – I promise you I never stray from the overall topic of why sexism and anti-feminism writ large are wrong, and utterly lacking in the way of any real, substantive or reasonable justification to be opposed to the equality of women. Full stop.

The other thing that is totally hysterical about your insults is that they're all about "sexual impotence", and for a male who claims to believe in feminism, somehow you think that it is "insulting" to another male to call him "limp dicked".

No, it is scientifically proven that it's insulting to another male to call him "limp dicked." It means he has trouble achieving or sustaining an erection, to be clear.

That would only be seen as an insult to someone who believes that a "hard dick" is a sign of power, masculinity, or something of that nature.

Right. So, it's effective against your average male chauvinist. You've cracked the case!

Your insults truly expose how you subconsciously think ... which you have to admit, is entertaining .. don't you think?

lol No, my calling IsItBad "limp dicked" wasn't quite the inception-level event you seem to think it is.
Anything to say about the fact that you were entirely wrong about EMH societies basing their division of labor on gender?

 

[KatieDoes]

Women like sex.

if you were a better fuck, women wouldn’t be ‘manipulating’ you by withholding sexual favors.

If you were fuckable, women would be fucking you.

The problem isn’t that feminism is a disease. The problem is that you bring bad dick and no one wants it.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

The truly sad part of this thread is how righteousness combined with stubborn-ness and ignorance dominate clearly here.

OK, it’s a waste of time to aim for a genuine discussion with ideology-infested individuals; they are simply incapable of that due to hubris and righteousness.

Quoted for irony and hilarity!

 

[KatieDoes]

Eh…..it’s pretty idyllic on this side of the fence. You’d be amazed how much mutual admiration and respect leads to highly satisfying and hot, passionate sex.

This

It‘a because he’s careful and cautious and respectful of my mind, heart, and psyche, that I feel safe enough to let go and trust him to be reckless and a lil’ disrespectful with my body.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

northern VAM, I post this simply out of gladness.

I read your post in which you “socked it to” this most arrogant fellow, whose mind is infested with ideologies of the worst kind. And with hubris galore.

lol Oh my god you gigantic moron. I'm taking your user tags out of my quote from your message. You should probably stop trying to do that since you clearly don't know how.
Yes, clearly my mind is "infested" with the worst ideologies; equality, egalitarianism, not treating women like jerks...
I love how you only seem to pop back around when someone sticks up to defend you Can't stick up for yourself without backup.
I'd like to remind you that, at least in the classical sense, it's only hubris if I don't win. And so far I'm kinda feeling like a winner around here.

Any asshole who believes he possesses a monopoly on correctness deserves to be socked perennially and you did a far better job than I’d be capable of that.

lol Well, yes. But being fair, the list of people who would do a far better job than you at matching me in a debate is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very long one.
Also: if we're talking about one side that is feminist – believing generally in equality between the sexes and that women are equally capable at any given job that doesn't directly involve having testicles – and one side that's anti-feminist, then yes: I think it's fair to say the former camp *does* have a bit of a monopoly on correctness. You can't say this generally, in areas where a genuine difference of opinion can be allowed for by reasonable people who enjoy the great advances human society has made since 1860... but here, with respect to the general meta-topic we've been discussing for, like, 18 pages, it's completely fine. We are right and you are wrong.

Your language is not mine, you know, and real native speakers simply do a better job than I can.

lol No, I don't think it's your language that's holding you back...

The truly sad part of this thread is how righteousness combined with stubborn-ness and ignorance dominate clearly here. The women don’t concern me much; I’d want nothing to do with any one of them.

Ha! I'm reminded of Aesop, here. The fox and the grapes...

But when men who would be capable of thinking more clearly about deadly diseases, like exaggerated feminism, chime in with the misguided women here, then I find that regrettable.

So, it's been pretty hard to actually engage with you on this topic specifically, because every time you're challenged on it, you refuse to define your terms: what do you mean when you say "feminism."
I know, I'm literally wasting the energy it takes to type that out, because you're not going to respond. You never do. You throw out terms and make insane analogies and toss down wild claims, and when someone confronts you about them you never respond, or you ignore the challenge.
Because your charges are all empty. You're shooting blanks. You call feminism a "disease," and even if I were to ask you: "Okay, let's discuss: what is it about feminism that you dislike so much that you would reach into your Bag O' Pedestrian Insults to call it a 'disease'?"
And from you: crickets.

I don’t know how helpful you and ItIsBad might find an author of an anti-feminism book from the 1970s, Esther Vilar. An MD by training, from Argentina, born of Jewish parents who fled there from Nazi Germany.

Jesus, you and the Nazis...

Here a link to a PDF copy of it: [REDACTED BECAUSE PIRACY] And in her Chapter on Women’s Liberation in USA she covers also the thinking of smart Americans, and Europeans on the subject of (then) new thinking about both genders. And of course it is not as simple-minded as the howling women here claim.

First of all, the women here don't howl. I'm sure the noises they make are far more pleasant – not that you would ever be so lucky to hear them.
Second, you *really* shouldn't post links to copyrighted works on the open forums. Someone might report you. I've redacted your link from my reply but you should go into your post and edit it out before you get in trouble.
People here should actually be familiar with Vilar: she's kind of infamous. She published her book, The Manipulated Man, in the 1970s and was rightly trounced for it. But don't feel too bad for her: the controversy helped to gin up sales of her book (because of course it did). Citing this book as part of an appeal to authority fallacy really doesn't help your case: the fact that someone else had the writing ability to put all your arguments into book form and then publish it doesn't do a whole lot to make anything you're saying more correct.
But really, you should remove this link. If you haven't been reported already.

Also – buried somewhere in the book – is the author’s explanation for why some men are so much in favor of feminism: because only feminists make these chauvinist men feel so superior, because feminists FALSELY claim, that men are the stronger gender. Capable of suppressing women.

LOL Literally I have never heard anyone who described themselves as a feminist say any of this. Really glad I didn't waste my bandwidth downloading your pirated book.

When in reality, it is exactly the other way around. By controlling access to sexual favors, women are able to manipulate men as much as they like to.

HAHAHAHA!... I mean, you basically decribed the plot of Lysistrata. It's a pretty common dramatic trope: the woman will use her womanly wiles to disuade her man from some course of action that she doesn't approve of...
There are a couple of problems with this theory – which I'm going to assume you subscribe to, since you're throwing it out here and seem to think it's a great idea.
Women don't "[control] access to sexual favors." My default is not to automatically put my penis inside of things that wave me forward. This is part of feminism that you don't seem to understand: it puts forward the idea that the sexes should be on equal footing. So, I have as much control over the sexual favors I give out as a woman has over her sexual favors. Neither side has more or less control.
Putting forward the suggestion that women control "sexual favors" is a deeply regressive notion that suggests women have a place they belong, and it's not in the high-paid jobs or leadership posts that men occupy.

That is what the whole book is about. Title is “The Manipulated Man”. Now granted the book is rather dated, but the PDF version I cited above is from 1998. And even in an interview last year with Esther Vilar, on Swiss TV – while she admits many aspects having changed with time – the author sticks to large parts of her original thesis from 1971.

OK, it’s a waste of time to aim for a genuine discussion with ideology-infested individuals;

lol Every time anyone here has tried to engage in you relatively good faith to challenge your ideas, you ignore them. So, yes: discussing anything with you *is* a waste of time.

they are simply incapable of that due to hubris and righteousness. But I see that one more man has dared to speak up against all the stubborn ignorance here, and I feel glad about that. And another man too. So maybe The American Mind is not as ignorant as it seemed to be in the beginning?

So insulting an entire gender isn't enough for you? You're going to bring nationality into it now?

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Women don't "[control] access to sexual favors." My default is not to automatically put my penis inside of things that wave me forward. This is part of feminism that you don't seem to understand: it puts forward the idea that the sexes should be on equal footing. So, I have as much control over the sexual favors I give out as a woman has over her sexual favors. Neither side has more or less control.

Okay, I need to expand on this point – I wasn't fully awake when I composed my last post, and I had this in the tired jumble of thoughts I was working with as I wrote and didn't give mention of it, even though it's probably the most important critique of the "women control sex" line of thinking:

You are not entitled to access the vagina. (I'm bolding this so that Wmm WWW mms WMW will maybe understand it)

This idea – that women are bad because they control the sex, and because of them certain men don't get to have the sex – is absolutely soaking in the notion that men are entitled to have sex whenever they want, and damn those feminist women who won't just surrender sex at the drop of a hat.

Also, stop dropping your hat all over the place. Have some dignity, dammit.

Women being selective about their partners – and specifically not choosing you – does not mean they are withholding sexual favors. By the same token, women in relationships with men aren't obligated to have sex with them on demand. If you get into an argument with your partner and she decides not to have sex with you because she's mad at that dumb thing you said to her, she's not withholding sexual favors in order to manipulate you; she's choosing not to have sex with you because you're just not attractive to her when you're being an asshole. THIS IS A NORMAL HUMAN REACTION.

 

[Diosax]

Eh…..it’s pretty idyllic on this side of the fence. You’d be amazed how much mutual admiration and respect leads to highly satisfying and hot, passionate sex.

Yes! This!

This

It‘a because he’s careful and cautious and respectful of my mind, heart, and psyche, that I feel safe enough to let go and trust him to be reckless and a lil’ disrespectful with my body.

This 100%

Women being selective about their partners – and specifically not choosing you – does not mean they are withholding sexual favors. By the same token, women in relationships with men aren't obligated to have sex with them on demand. If you get into an argument with your partner and she decides not to have sex with you because she's mad at that dumb thing you said to her, she's not withholding sexual favors in order to manipulate you; she's choosing not to have sex with you because you're just not attractive to her when you're being an asshole. THIS IS A NORMAL HUMAN REACTION.

This and adding that men that think they're entitled to sex especially if in a relationship come off as rapey! And do rapey things.

 

[greengamegirl]

Even if you are a woman, it's funny people think you're man so why bother trying to prove them wrong.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

*sticks a fork in the thread*

Well, I do believe that's all she wrote.

 

[highmountainoolong]

That's it? Really? You guys are all done?

Thanks for bumping the thread and keeping it going.

 

[drobert44]

Okay, I need to expand on this point – I wasn't fully awake when I composed my last post, and I had this in the tired jumble of thoughts I was working with as I wrote and didn't give mention of it, even though it's probably the most important critique of the "women control sex" line of thinking:

You are not entitled to access the vagina. (I'm bolding this so that Wmm WWW mms WMW will maybe understand it)

This idea – that women are bad because they control the sex, and because of them certain men don't get to have the sex – is absolutely soaking in the notion that men are entitled to have sex whenever they want, and damn those feminist women who won't just surrender sex at the drop of a hat.

Also, stop dropping your hat all over the place. Have some dignity, dammit.

Women being selective about their partners – and specifically not choosing you – does not mean they are withholding sexual favors. By the same token, women in relationships with men aren't obligated to have sex with them on demand. If you get into an argument with your partner and she decides not to have sex with you because she's mad at that dumb thing you said to her, she's not withholding sexual favors in order to manipulate you; she's choosing not to have sex with you because you're just not attractive to her when you're being an asshole. THIS IS A NORMAL HUMAN REACTION.

Makes perfect sense. Why would you wanna fuck a woman who doesnt wanna fuck at that moment?

 

[Magineer]

It's always the same, right? Where's a scuttler when one needs one?

And they've done such a terrific job of keeping a thread headlined "NO WOMEN ON HERE" on the first page of personals over the past weeks, thus giving a sorely-needed warning to the unwary.

Finally tired of their egocentric posturing..? Somehow one doubts it.

Still, doubtless the cockles of their hearts will be warmed by learning that not only:

a. did I not bother reading any of the thread beyond my second posting (#50) once the moronocracy had predictably taken over with its witless ranting.

but also:

b. their tireless efforts to publicise my predicament has resulted in a veritable cornucopia of private messages, from which I now appear to have gleaned at least a couple of worthwhile correspondents.

A win there, then. But regarding that "warning to the unwary", surely one can induce some of those worthy scuttlers to come back, rant just a little more and keep that headline in front of eyes..?

Oh, come on... you know you want to... just one more time before disappearing back under your rock..?

 

[Diosax]

I still don't understand how someone can put together so many words and say nothing.

Are people okay?

 

[Magineer]

There you go. One just knew you had it in you if only you put what meagre means counts as your minds to it.

Still, only two? The scuttlers jungle telegraph been busy flashing the "Psst... don't answer him" message around, eh?
OK, not to worry... it will have been seen by enough... and all thanks to you. Particularly you guys flaunting yourselves in dresses and lipstick and busy practising your falsetto voices. Sorry, one intends not to interrupt.

One can only wonder if they actually understand the term "poetic justice"...

No further interest.

 

[YourgirlfriendLaura]

I still don't understand how someone can put together so many words and say nothing.

Are people okay?

OP aint. He sounds like a pycho super villian in his last post.....and paranoid. Or is that just his deluded sense of self importance? He breaks my heart, honestly.

 

[TheDarksiders]

Be comforted, people: the puerile OP and his ilk are doing just fine. They're trolling y'all and loving the attention. In fact, as far as I can tell, everyone is loving this thread, making popcorn, piling on. Everyone's a winner!

I might suggest that feeding a troll is never a good idea, but why rain on the parade?

 

[YourgirlfriendLaura]

Be comforted, people: the puerile OP and his ilk are doing just fine. They're trolling y'all and loving the attention. In fact, as far as I can tell, everyone is loving this thread, making popcorn, piling on. Everyone's a winner!

I might suggest that feeding a troll is never a good idea, but why rain on the parade?

Agreed to an extent, and I haven't really added to this thread.
But when I started on Lit, I thought I was crazy because some posts were so disturbing and everyone around the OP acted like it was normal.....There is something to be said in calling a spade "A spade," for all to witness.
I am not trying to get this thread restarted, so let me go PM all the other "fake" women on Lit to get permission to post this./s/
But understand, the SAD part IS that the incels laugh when told something by 20 people. The inability to learn from another's perspective, to feel superior to others at all costs, makes for a super lonely, unfulfilled life. I do not know one person/ old man that operates like this, who is not miserable.
The OP will impress us losers when he publishes something, tho. He has been working on his plot points for years, so his stories will be amazing. Can't wait! And being a celebrated Lit author will enrich his life...and womenz will be more willing to read his stuff...Might make the OP feel vested in all sexes...seriously. "Here" is to hoping for harmony.

 

[Uneklensane]

To circle around back to the idea behind this thread.... there are women on this site. I have met several, and chat regularly with others. I would like to increase the number of women I chat with. I don't seek, nor expect sex. Just simple mutual exchange of thoughts, and ideas. They can be sexual in nature but are exclusive of it. Just saying....

 

[YourgirlfriendLaura]

To circle around back to the idea behind this thread.... there are women on this site. I have met several, and chat regularly with others. I would like to increase the number of women I chat with. I don't seek, nor expect sex. Just simple mutual exchange of thoughts, and ideas. They can be sexual in nature but are exclusive of it. Just saying....

Nice sig!

 

[TheDarksiders]

Agreed to an extent, and I haven't really added to this thread.
But when I started on Lit, I thought I was crazy because some posts were so disturbing and everyone around the OP acted like it was normal.....There is something to be said in calling a spade "A spade," for all to witness.
I am not trying to get this thread restarted, so let me go PM all the other "fake" women on Lit to get permission to post this./s/
But understand, the SAD part IS that the incels laugh when told something by 20 people. The inability to learn from another's perspective, to feel superior to others at all costs, makes for a super lonely, unfulfilled life. I do not know one person/ old man that operates like this, who is not miserable.
The OP will impress us losers when he publishes something, tho. He has been working on his plot points for years, so his stories will be amazing. Can't wait! And being a celebrated Lit author will enrich his life...and womenz will be more willing to read his stuff...Might make the OP feel vested in all sexes...seriously. "Here" is to hoping for harmony.

Fair enough, Laura, and my note was certainly not meant to single you out. The question is real and urgent: what should be done about the hate out here, much of which is directed at women? (We get the same PMs from many of those men; it's disgusting and mind-numbingly stupid.) The problem is the there's no good answer. It's the same problem that rational, grounded people feel in the age of Trump: we can't ignore the lies, crimes, and sexism/racism of the political right and yet to respond to them is to acknowledge and normalize their behavior.

Your call for "harmony" feels right to me--utopian perhaps!

 

[Diosax]

I know I will talk to deaf ears but this is why a lot of women feel so strongly about this topic.(and I will copy & paste the exact same msg on the other thread)


These trolls, incels, whatever you want to call them don't just live in Lit. They are part of society somewhere which means they behave this way outside of Lit. These men interact with other women and they probably have predatory behavior just like that guy in the video.



We deal with men like this all the time. ALL THE TIME.