Never forget what feminism is really about

[KimGordon67]

Tone didn't have anything to do with it.

The fact that you assume someone bitching about feminism is a middle class, middle aged, straight white male does.

Because there are PLENTY of yellow, red, light brown, darker brown and black man pigs out there that bitch about feminism plenty.

If you actually read what I said, I never said HE was a middle class etc man - I just said he was unhappy that middle class etc men don't run everything any more.



Yea that excuse doesn't work for white middle class straight men either.

It was sort of a joke based on the fact that white people love saying 'I'm not racist - I have black friends'. Having said that, it is indeed true that my lifetime best friend is a (now) a middle aged straight white guy.



Yea you do, that's why you brought it up.

And I don't have to try to paint you as anything, you've done a fine job of painting what you are all on your own.

I'm just asking questions.

You're question was "... what is your beef with middle age middle class white guys?" I can't see anywhere that I've said I have a beef with them ... my problem is with the people who are upset that middle class etc men don't make all the rules any more. Keep up, and try reading what people actually say before you start pulling it apart.
(Admittedly, most of the above group ARE, for obvious reasons, middle class etc men, but not all by a long shot, and not all middle class etc men are upset about the power shift. Would you like a Venn diagramme?)

 

[richard_daily]

Yes it is what you said. You said it's okay for women to abuse men and opposing this makes a man afraid of women. You just said it again in this very post.

No liar.

What I said, is that you're afraid of women, because you are.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you actually read what I said, I never said HE was a middle class etc man - I just said he was unhappy that middle class etc men don't run everything any more.

Even though you heavily imply it...because who else is going to be upset about that other than a handful of white supremacists? Fair enough.

You're question was "... what is your beef with middle age middle class white guys?" I can't see anywhere that I've said I have a beef with them .

I never said you said that you did.

I said you appeared to have one and asked you to why and the closest thing to denial was " Some of my best friends are straight white middle class men." LOL

.. my problem is with the people who are upset that middle class etc men don't make all the rules any more.

See. That's all I wanted.

And I agree....even though I think it's a microscopic and unimportant part of the first world the idea of men not running everything is still a very hot button issue throughout the non 1st world.

 

[KimGordon67]

Even though you heavily imply it...because who else is going to be upset about that other than a handful of white supremacists? Fair enough.



I never said you said that you did.

I said you appeared to have one and asked you to why and the closest thing to denial was " Some of my best friends are straight white middle class men." LOL



See. That's all I wanted.

And I agree....even though I think it's a microscopic and unimportant part of the first world the idea of men not running everything is still a very hot button issue throughout the non 1st world.

... and it's pretty much what I said. You read a whole lot of words into my sentences, and a whole lotta 'implication'. You didn't say I 'appeared' to have a beef - I copied and pasted your question directly, and there's no 'appear' in there. Trust me, unless I'm really pissed (which I'm not right now), I'm extremely careful with my words. What I say is what I mean. Unless it's clearly ironic, like the 'some of my best friends ...' statement - I kinda thought the irony was obviously there, but maybe not.
I've denied your accusation that I hate white middle class straight men, or men in general, point blank. Here it is again: I don't hate men, not even the white middle class straight ones. I have absolutely no idea what you'd accept as 'evidence' of that, and really I don't care. I know your perception is false. What you think of me is of little real consequence.

For someone who gets upset when people don't read his words and respond to their exact meaning, you're pretty good at adding a whole lotta stuff to what others say, and missing other bits. If you're going to play the 'respond to what I actually said' game, the rules are the same for both sides.

(This post is a bit of a mess because I kept editing it and then couldn't be bothered making it flow better. But all the relevant points are there.)

 

[cowslinger64]

Even though you heavily imply it...because who else is going to be upset about that other than a handful of white supremacists? Fair enough.



I never said you said that you did.

I said you appeared to have one and asked you to why and the closest thing to denial was " Some of my best friends are straight white middle class men." LOL



See. That's all I wanted.

And I agree....even though I think it's a microscopic and unimportant part of the first world the idea of men not running everything is still a very hot button issue throughout the non 1st world.

Jesus keerist... Isn't it ever possible for you to shut the fuck up? There cannot be a single thread where you are less qualified to speak on than one regarding women.

I don't think I've ever seen a troll so absolutely full of shit in the dozen years posting on message boards. You're ridiculous.. Congrats, you win stupid fuck of the decade, with your boyfriend vette a close second.. And he's only runner up because you best him on pure volume.

I hope you get paid by the word, otherwise you're a massively larger loser than I thought possible.

 

[BotanyBoy]

\ Here it is again: I don't hate men, not even the white middle class straight ones. I have absolutely no idea what you'd accept as 'evidence' of that, and really I don't care. I know your perception is false. What you think of me is of little real consequence.

I find that totally shocking, and suspect it a lie to save face after letting your hate for white guys slip.


Remember when I posted an example of a prominent feminist who was clearly a hateful piece of shit as evidence that feminism isn't a unified political ideology or movement and certainly not one that is synonymous with equality??? But it was only one example so it's totally not evidence that some feminists and their ideas of what feminism is are hateful pieces of shit??

I'm just returning the favor, so I'll never accept anything from you as evidence of anything. You're filled with nothing but lies and hate.

Do enjoy that.....and bless your heart.

Jesus keerist... Isn't it ever possible for you to shut the fuck up?

No.

There cannot be a single thread where you are less qualified to speak on than one regarding women.

And what exactly qualifies someone to discuss women?

Or are you just white knighting again ??

I hope you get paid by the word, otherwise you're a massively larger loser than I thought possible.

Said the white knight.....from Detroit. LOL

 

[KimGordon67]

I find that totally shocking, and suspect it a lie to save face after letting your hate for white guys slip.


Remember when I posted an example of a prominent feminist who was clearly a hateful piece of shit as evidence that feminism isn't a unified political ideology or movement and certainly not one that is synonymous with equality??? But it was only one example so it's totally not evidence that some feminists and their ideas of what feminism is are hateful pieces of shit??

I'm just returning the favor, so I'll never accept anything from you as evidence of anything. You're filled with nothing but lies and hate.

Do enjoy that.....and bless your heart.




No.



And what exactly qualifies someone to discuss women?

Or are you just white knighting again ??



Said the white knight.....from Detroit. LOL

Wow ... that's some next level extrapolation.

I find it really interesting that people on the GB manage to summarise posters' entire character based on a bit of posting in here. The more I read of regular posters, the more puzzling I find them. Yet based on your interaction with JUST the stuff I post on the GB (no where else), you've decided I'm full of lies and hate.
I'm actually full of rainbows and unicorns and kittens. But whatever.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Your original assertion said "I refuse to listen because every point you made was based on unfounded speculation. You never once provided any cited facts to back up any of your counter arguments. Not one." That's not the same as what you've said above, which relates to one very specific point. (Also 'government studies' are often undertaken by feminists. I've done some work on government-funded research myself.)

You have never provided citations to refute the fact that rape is reported in at least 30 percent of female/female relationships, and the studies that show women initiate the majority of non-reciprocal violence have never been subsequently refuted.

So no, what I said was not different. You have no counter citations for what is relevant.

I frequently directly address your evidence. You routinely either ignore me when I do, or willfully misunderstand what I've said, or only address a partial aspect of my point.

You address my evidence with spin doctoring, not counter citations. All you come up with is unfounded speculation. So no, you're not worth taking seriously.

The latter points are beyond my ability to spin doctor my way out of.

Fixed your post.

Again, because you cannot refute this:

That's the problem here - those arms of feminism that would prefer to see the mother get the bulk of the parenting time is the arm of feminism with ALL the political and media power. ALL. They make the policies. You do not.

The feminists with the media power make fun of male victims of everything. No one - absolutely no one on television, no popular blogs, no well known activists - oppose this.

You pass off the Sharon Osbourne incident with a crowd of women cheering the dismembering of an innocent man as something in the past - but then you're quick to bring up shit that happened to women in the past. You routinely clam up when I challenge you about this. This is why feminism is so hopelessly corrupt: your hypocrisy is rock strong and it is proud.

And I don't even respect the men's rights movement anymore - they've bowed to MAGA and the whole revenge-against-women nonsense, instead of staying on the straight and narrow path of pursuing gender justice. It's literally not even about just your movement. It's about a bunch of ideologies that just want to get even with 'em.

And here's something else you cannot refute, and won't, because you've proven this to be right: you demand that men stand for women but you sneer when we ask you to stand up for us.

I can't help the tone you read into my words. Some of my best friends are straight white middle class men. I don't really understand what your point is. If you're trying to paint me as some reactionary man-hater, you've got a long road ahead of you.

"I can't be a misogynist. Some of my best friends are women! And I'm married!" - Donald Trump

I haven't read all the posts, but I assume that the OP is referring to 'militant or radical Feminists'? Those who are more concerned with gaining power over men, than with fixing pockets of oppression.
True feminists imo seek to eliminate injustice and abuse and to achieve a relatively equal society. Within limits, because you can't expect a woman to chop a tree as well as a man does, or a man to sing and dance.

This is exactly true. My actual term is mainstream feminism, the side of feminism that has all the media presence and political power - the feminists who set the public agenda are radical feminists who peddle fear of men.

I've talked and posted a few informational threads about how black feminism - which is not mainstream - is much more positive and egalitarian - but KKKimGordon would not even address that. Probably because she knows the actual powers that be among black feminists are, while not perfect, much better than the agenda-setters of feminism.

I wage a war of endless lies against any man who dares stand up for abused men.

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

Here it is again: I don't hate men, not even the white middle class straight ones.

"Here it is again: I don't hate women, not even the nasty women." - Donald Trump

 

[KimGordon67]

You have never provided citations to refute the fact that rape is reported in at least 30 percent of female/female relationships, and the studies that show women initiate the majority of non-reciprocal violence have never been subsequently refuted.

So no, what I said was not different. You have no counter citations for what is relevant.

Yes, it was - your originally said I'd NEVER done something, and then you backpedalled to apply the 'lack of evidence' to one specific topic.


You address my evidence with spin doctoring, not counter citations. All you come up with is unfounded speculation. So no, you're not worth taking seriously.


Fixed your post.

Again, because you cannot refute this:

That's the problem here - those arms of feminism that would prefer to see the mother get the bulk of the parenting time is the arm of feminism with ALL the political and media power. ALL. They make the policies. You do not.

The feminists with the media power make fun of male victims of everything. No one - absolutely no one on television, no popular blogs, no well known activists - oppose this.

So are you actually suggesting Osbourne is a feminist? Because I personally wouldn't say that, and I'm not sure she ever has.

You pass off the Sharon Osbourne incident with a crowd of women cheering the dismembering of an innocent man as something in the past - but then you're quick to bring up shit that happened to women in the past. You routinely clam up when I challenge you about this. This is why feminism is so hopelessly corrupt: your hypocrisy is rock strong and it is proud.

I don't even know what you're talking about here - I may have referred to a history of something, rather than isolated incidents, which is what you've done here.

And I don't even respect the men's rights movement anymore - they've bowed to MAGA and the whole revenge-against-women nonsense, instead of staying on the straight and narrow path of pursuing gender justice. It's literally not even about just your movement. It's about a bunch of ideologies that just want to get even with 'em.

And here's something else you cannot refute, and won't, because you've proven this to be right: you demand that men stand for women but you sneer when we ask you to stand up for us.


"I can't be a misogynist. Some of my best friends are women! And I'm married!" - Donald Trump

You need to understand when someone is using 'irony'. You may want to look it up.



This is exactly true. My actual term is mainstream feminism, the side of feminism that has all the media presence and political power - the feminists who set the public agenda are radical feminists who peddle fear of men.

I've talked and posted a few informational threads about how black feminism - which is not mainstream - is much more positive and egalitarian - but KKKimGordon would not even address that. Probably because she knows the actual powers that be among black feminists are, while not perfect, much better than the agenda-setters of feminism.

What's there to address? I'm all about the intersectional feminism, and agree wholeheartedly that mainstream feminism was utterly woeful at addressing the concern of women from all sort of minorities. When have I ever said otherwise?








"Here it is again: I don't hate women, not even the nasty women." - Donald Trump

That comment was a direct response to something BB said ... as you often do, you've taken an isolated sentence completely out of context.

What, exactly, would you accept as evidence of the fact that I don't hate men. I've stated repeatedly that my problem is with hegemonic masculinity - an ideology that's often damaging to actual men, especially those who aren't white and middle class. But you keep conflating 'masculinity' with 'men', even though I keep explaining that they're not the same, and I don't use the terms interchangeably. Do you really fine it THAT difficult to believe that someone could disagree with your interpretation of 'feminism' (even though often what you're talking about isn't actually feminism), but not hate men? Seriously? Even though I've repeatedly asserted that you clearly have an issue with 'feminism' but not women?

 

[richard_daily]

Scared of me, just like you're scared of women?

That's cool.

You don't "stand up for men", you shiver and shake at the sight of a strong woman, because you're a weak man.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I make up lie after lie after malicious, unfounded about LT because I fear and wish to shame and silence all men who speak out against women who inflict domestic violence on men.

 

[ConfusedSheep]

So you can throw out random personal attacks, and then I'm expected to explain their irrelevance in great detail in a thread that has no connection to that topic?

The rest of your post is just ranting from someone whose obviously a bit scared because white middle aged middle class hetero men don't have total control of everything anymore.

I dont know what I find dumber: your victim card "random personal attack"? Or your admission that removing opportunity potential from supposedly "white middle aged middle class hetero men" is a good thing when in fact it has resulted in a negative gross value for society? The very same cis white men that have, in large part, sacrificed their lives to protect the very right of your freedom to say such asinine comments. Me thinks its the latter.

Nice shaming language, "Your rambles sound like a scared man". Don't retort with anything of substance, thank goodness for that, I thought we were having what few would consider this board as an "intellectual conversation", maybe I should play chameleon and just start refuting your comments because of differing feelings or broken narratives, much like what you're doing.

I'm not even sure where you got "random personal attack" in the first place, unless you're referring to me saying "you've shown yourself to lack the capacity of open conversation in good faith" which would be a presupposition based off of your previous interactions with not only myself, but others observed in this forum.

You reject statistical data, you're argumentative, you refuse to accept that you are wrong in any aspect whatsoever, like wtf do you want?...Oh, just the removal of power from "cis white men"....of course... and you supposedly dont share the same ideology as the radical "few"...

 

[KimGordon67]

I dont know what I find dumber: your victim card "random personal attack"? Or your admission that removing opportunity potential from supposedly "white middle aged middle class hetero men" is a good thing when in fact it has resulted in a negative gross value for society? The very same cis white men that have, in large part, sacrificed their lives to protect the very right of your freedom to say such asinine comments. Me thinks its the latter.

I never said anything about removing opportunity from straight etc men ... but seriously, do you just think it's coincidence that men happens to occupy the majority of the positions of power? Is that seriously just because their the 'best person for the job'. You honestly believe that the vast majority of women just happen to not be the 'best person for the job'. Seriously?

Nice shaming language, "Your rambles sound like a scared man". Don't retort with anything of substance, thank goodness for that, I thought we were having what few would consider this board as an "intellectual conversation", maybe I should play chameleon and just start refuting your comments because of differing feelings or broken narratives, much like what you're doing.

I didn't call you a white etc man. I didn't even call you man (although it seems likely). I just said you were worried now that middle class etc men don't appear to run absolutely everything. If you want to have 'intellectual conversation', maybe respond to what people actually say, instead of what you think they say.

I'm not even sure where you got "random personal attack" in the first place, unless you're referring to me saying "you've shown yourself to lack the capacity of open conversation in good faith" which would be a presupposition based off of your previous interactions with not only myself, but others observed in this forum.

Your random personal attack was your assertion that I'm so undateable that, in the absence of a husband, I'd clearly regress to mad cat lady status. Bringing someone's dateability into the debate just demonstrates that you don't really know what 'intellectual conversation' means. And of course, the worst thing we can say to a women is that she's undateable ... because you know, without men,
where would we be. Ask LJ about that - he's got a great theory involving meat shields that would fit right in with you 'men fought for your right to blah blah blah' rhetoric.

You reject statistical data, you're argumentative, you refuse to accept that you are wrong in any aspect whatsoever, like wtf do you want?...Oh, just the removal of power from "cis white men"....of course... and you supposedly dont share the same ideology as the radical "few"...

I'm all about the stats - I use stats all the freaking time. However, I also know how flawed the DV stats are. Are you actually familiar with how they're collected, or are you just taking them at face value?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yes, it was - your originally said I'd NEVER done something, and then you backpedalled to apply the 'lack of evidence' to one specific topic.

I already showed where you're wrong here. You have never refuted specific cited statistics with anything to counter those statistics. You try to spin doctor your way out of it, but when I showed you citations that show women on women domestic violence is as rampant (proportionally speaking) as male-on-female DV, you never once showed how that is statistically untrue. My statement has never changed.

That comment was a direct response to something BB said ... as you often do, you've taken an isolated sentence completely out of context.

What, exactly, would you accept as evidence of the fact that I don't hate men.

Oh I am not saying you hate men. I am stating that your argument "Some of my best friends are" is fallacious shit that ignorant white people say all the time when they're caught being racist or insensitive. That's not the same as saying you hate men: it's saying your argument is faulty in a notoriously obnoxious way.

I've stated repeatedly that my problem is with hegemonic masculinity

"Hegemonic masculinity" is an attack on men and you feminists are deliberately dishonest when you say it's not. Masculinity is, in the dictionary, a term referring to male-ness. Feminists are notorious for trying to lie to people and say it doesn't mean that.

even though I keep explaining that they're not the same

You are a liar. Hegemonic masculinity is a term DESIGNED to excuse women who abuse children or commit rape and murder, etc. There is no feminist framework, stated or otherwise, that explains violence or bad behavior by women under that term - except to provide an excuse for these women. This is by far one of the most dishonest aspects of feminism - saying that masculinity isn't to be conflated with men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity

Masculinity (manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men.

Every dictionary in the English language agrees with this. Which means that you, KimGordon, are a liar, and you are trying to peddle newspeak, and that's just not gonna fly.

"Hegemonic masculinity", furthermore, is not even the correct diagnosis of the problem. The correct diagnosis, which feminists even came up with, is POWER DYNAMICS.

an ideology that's often damaging to actual men

No, male disposability - something seen in nature, and which I provided for you documentation of - is what is damaging to actual men. The concept of males competing for mates is something that occurs throughout the animal kingdom, and it is the foundation for bad behavior by men. Males of almost every animal species in existence are compelled by nature to compete, competition invariably goes toxic, this is where sexism and violence comes from. Power dynamics. NOT Hegemonic Masculinity. What you call Hegemonic Masculinity is a SYMPTOM of power dynamics which is a SYMPTOM of mate competition.

Do you really fine it THAT difficult to believe that someone could disagree with your interpretation of 'feminism' (even though often what you're talking about isn't actually feminism), but not hate men? Seriously? Even though I've repeatedly asserted that you clearly have an issue with 'feminism' but not women?

LOL like I said, feminism is to be judged by its adherents.

So are you actually suggesting Osbourne is a feminist? Because I personally wouldn't say that, and I'm not sure she ever has.

How do you know she's not?

I don't even know what you're talking about here - I may have referred to a history of something, rather than isolated incidents, which is what you've done here.

Neither men nor women nor feminists have ever been sympathetic to battered men.

See the "He Had it Coming" song in Chicago, the endless commercials and movies, where women slap men for laughs, the Tiger Woods domestic violence parody on SNL... the way feminists disrupted a real life battered men's forum... the list goes on and on.

Feminism has a long history of this, and of being silent and complicit.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I'm all about the stats - I use stats all the freaking time. However, I also know how flawed the DV stats are. Are you actually familiar with how they're collected, or are you just taking them at face value?

Not defending ConfusedSheep and his "white men made the world" (sorry, but all races and both genders had an important role in making this world), but here's why we're calling bullshit on you:

In your universe, DV stats are only ever flawed when they point out that women have an equal role in the problem (and can even be a danger to each other). If you can find one that nails men as the sole cause of all that is unhappy in the world it is automatically and unquestionably gospel.

This is what is wrong with feminism - outside of black feminism you're all like this.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wow ... that's some next level extrapolation.

Not really, just following the patterns.

I find it really interesting that people on the GB manage to summarise posters' entire character based on a bit of posting in here. The more I read of regular posters, the more puzzling I find them. Yet based on your interaction with JUST the stuff I post on the GB (no where else), you've decided I'm full of lies and hate.

Why? Most people summarize someones entire character just looking at others and observing their clothing and personal hygiene habits.

Is it really that shocking to you that people do the same on the internet?

All I did was say Trump wasn't an autocratic dictator who's LITERALLY Hitler.....I went from cool guy to racist reich winger instantly.

I'm actually full of rainbows and unicorns and kittens. But whatever.

Yea that's what they always say.....and my broccoli and cheese farts smell divine too!

 

[KimGordon67]

I already showed where you're wrong here. You have never refuted specific cited statistics with anything to counter those statistics. You try to spin doctor your way out of it, but when I showed you citations that show women on women domestic violence is as rampant (proportionally speaking) as male-on-female DV, you never once showed how that is statistically untrue. My statement has never changed.

I stopped getting into evidence-based discussions with you (and most of the GB) because it's utterly clear that you (and most of the GB) either don't bother reading the evidence, or willfully misunderstand/misinterpret it. I did, at some point, demonstrate that there's a bucket of research going on in relation to same-sex DV, most of which is probably being conducted by feminists, because it seems an area that feminism researchers would be interested in, but you've conveniently forgotten that.


Oh I am not saying you hate men. I am stating that your argument "Some of my best friends are" is fallacious shit that ignorant white people say all the time when they're caught being racist or insensitive. That's not the same as saying you hate men: it's saying your argument is faulty in a notoriously obnoxious way.

Again, it was a joke playing on exactly the trope you're handily explaining here.


"Hegemonic masculinity" is an attack on men and you feminists are deliberately dishonest when you say it's not. Masculinity is, in the dictionary, a term referring to male-ness. Feminists are notorious for trying to lie to people and say it doesn't mean that.


You are a liar. Hegemonic masculinity is a term DESIGNED to excuse women who abuse children or commit rape and murder, etc. There is no feminist framework, stated or otherwise, that explains violence or bad behavior by women under that term - except to provide an excuse for these women. This is by far one of the most dishonest aspects of feminism - saying that masculinity isn't to be conflated with men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity


Every dictionary in the English language agrees with this. Which means that you, KimGordon, are a liar, and you are trying to peddle newspeak, and that's just not gonna fly.

'Associated with men' is not the same as saying 'masculinity = men'. Women can be masculine too. Men can be not masculine.
Also, hegemonic masculinity is not all masculinity. It's a specific version of masculinity that only inheres in some men, depending on the power dynamics at play at any historical moment.

"Hegemonic masculinity", furthermore, is not even the correct diagnosis of the problem. The correct diagnosis, which feminists even came up with, is POWER DYNAMICS.


No, male disposability - something seen in nature, and which I provided for you documentation of - is what is damaging to actual men. The concept of males competing for mates is something that occurs throughout the animal kingdom, and it is the foundation for bad behavior by men. Males of almost every animal species in existence are compelled by nature to compete, competition invariably goes toxic, this is where sexism and violence comes from. Power dynamics. NOT Hegemonic Masculinity. What you call Hegemonic Masculinity is a SYMPTOM of power dynamics which is a SYMPTOM of mate competition.


LOL like I said, feminism is to be judged by its adherents.

I've responded to the last point ad nauseum.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not defending ConfusedSheep and his "white men made the world" (sorry, but all races and both genders had an important role in making this world), but here's why we're calling bullshit on you:

So he doesn't get attacked for his bullshit, but I get hauled over the coals for what you consider to be 'bullshit' on my part ... hmmm. Interesting.

In your universe, DV stats are only ever flawed when they point out that women have an equal role in the problem (and can even be a danger to each other). If you can find one that nails men as the sole cause of all that is unhappy in the world it is automatically and unquestionably gospel.

This is what is wrong with feminism - outside of black feminism you're all like this.

So you're clearly an expert on DV stats. Please, do explain to me how the Conflict Tactics Scale works, and why the critiques of it's use to collect DV data are invalid.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you're clearly an expert on DV stats. Please, do explain to me how the Conflict Tactics Scale works, and why the critiques of it's use to collect DV data are invalid.

Because of the exclusion of context variables and motivational factors in understanding acts of violence.



Do I get a cookie?

 

[KimGordon67]

Because of the exclusion of context variables and motivational factors in understanding acts of violence.



Do I get a cookie?

No, because you didn't include a reference for the Wiki entry, which you totally plagiarized. (Also, you're not the one positioning yourself as some sort of expert on DV - that's LJ and also I think the confused lamb.) (Also, cookies don't actually exist - they're just a concept that feminists pretend exist so men will be our meat shields.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, because you didn't include a reference for the Wiki entry, which you totally plagiarized.

Summarized....please!!

(Also, you're not the one positioning yourself as some sort of expert on DV - that's LJ and also I think the confused lamb.)

Nah I'm not an expert, I just know enough to know as a male I have no recourse for being a victim and all I need to wind up convicted of it is an accusation.

Thankfully I don't have to worry about that shit.

Being an ace has never been so good.

(Also, cookies don't actually exist - they're just a concept that feminists pretend exist so men will be our meat shields.)

*looks at cookie jar on counter*
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/210/403/OhCrap.png

 

[coati]

Remember when I posted an example of a prominent feminist who was clearly a hateful piece of shit as evidence that feminism isn't a unified political ideology or movement and certainly not one that is synonymous with equality??? But it was only one example so it's totally not evidence that some feminists and their ideas of what feminism is are hateful pieces of shit??

I'm just returning the favor, so I'll never accept anything from you as evidence of anything. You're filled with nothing but lies and hate.

Now, now, calm down, big Boy. Kim is not all that bad. I realize you have your ideas on how a woman is supposed to behave, but not everyone is required to agree with your strong opinions.

Go out and get a little exercise. There is so much more to life than ranting on your computer. That's a good Boy!

 

[KimGordon67]

Summarized....please!!



Nah I'm not an expert, I just know enough to know as a male I have no recourse for being a victim and all I need to wind up convicted of it is an accusation.

Thankfully I don't have to worry about that shit.

Being an ace has never been so good.



*looks at cookie jar on counter*
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/210/403/OhCrap.png

Word for word quote, no quotation marks, no reference ... plagiarized.

Sorry about the cookies. Don't tell the other men.

 

[KimGordon67]

Now, now, calm down, big Boy. Kim is not all that bad. I realize you have your ideas on how a woman is supposed to behave, but not everyone is required to agree with your strong opinions.

Go out and get a little exercise. There is so much more to life than ranting on your computer. That's a good Boy!

It's OK ... it's all cover for his secret crush.

 

[richard_daily]

It's cute that you're so scared of me that you have to "fix my post" instead of responding to the facts I bring to your shitty thread.

You're scared of women. You're alone. You're pathetic.