male rape survivors
- Thread starter kegkilla
- Start date
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Sterling
El Presidente
- 12,994
- 7,898
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 21,732
- 39,582
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
I'm curious Tan; which is it? Does the gender of the speaker only matter when it's men commenting on male placement in the world? Because it seems like at first, during Kirun's admitted sophomoric attacks on your gender, you vehemently rejected the use of gender as an ad hominem for prejudice against opinions on gender issues. In other words, you stated,it doesn't matter what gender we are; our opinions on issues should not be looked at differently due to that(As that would be ignorant).
Yet, in following replies, you quite often assume the opponent is male--andthenassume his distaste for the term "privilege" is centered around his gender. What's worse, you then attempt to use prejudicial language within your statement to degrade the weight of his opinion based solely on the fact that he is a male, commenting on a subject. For example: Kirun is "pathetic" because he belongs to said privileged class (Through his gender) and is daring to comment on "privilege"; and Lejina is a "tool" with a "fragile ego" that can't cope (Again, because they are male and born into privilege). As you can see;you use the very fact that they are men, to attempt to illustrate the "pathetic" nature of them commenting on an argument about gender.
So I'm just very curious. When is it "okay" to use gender to invalidate someone's opinion? Is it only okay when it assumes the guise of privilege? Why? Isn't privilege just a pseudonym for gender in this case? All evidence seems to point to this conclusion; as none of the other circumstances the posters may have seemed to matter in regards to you being able to lump them into the privileged class--so therefor, we can assume "privilege" (At least in your arguments here)=male. And if so, again, why is it okay to use them being "male" to, as you said in your original post, take validity from their opinion? And I agree with your original point, vehemently; gender shouldn't impact the argument. It's not right to ignore a woman under the auspices of her belonging to the female sex. But I'm confused why so many feminists (I assure you, you're not alone) believe it's okay to do it to men.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
He can totally pass now...pass as a really goofy looking man trying to look like a frightfully ugly woman.
Well duh, getting back to the topic at hand... You can't lock up women in prison, they might get raped, and that would be bad.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
one of more interesting thesis I read is that the society generally gravitates punishing men more than women because of how the law was set in the first place. Since men are the doers in the public sphere, whatever hideous act men may commit, these are classified as criminal offense. Whatever women do, however, is not. Abandonment of your child, for instance, could mean death. Now, it is your right.
Rape is a great example of how this is exemplified. Rape occurs because of unconsentedpenetrationto many state's laws. Penetration implies very simple following. That there must be an object that would penetrate a genital organ. Already, the law is heavily thwarted against men since men are the ones who penetrate the most and the victim must be the one with a genital organ that is penetrable.
Recent changes in law, driven by feminists, did make that into a more gender equal specifics and took out any mention of genders. Penetration still remains, though. Language remains to be consistent in gender specific and feminists still use same bogus bullshit stats to back their crusade against rape for men (1 in 6 or 5).
Rape is a great example of how this is exemplified. Rape occurs because of unconsentedpenetrationto many state's laws. Penetration implies very simple following. That there must be an object that would penetrate a genital organ. Already, the law is heavily thwarted against men since men are the ones who penetrate the most and the victim must be the one with a genital organ that is penetrable.
Recent changes in law, driven by feminists, did make that into a more gender equal specifics and took out any mention of genders. Penetration still remains, though. Language remains to be consistent in gender specific and feminists still use same bogus bullshit stats to back their crusade against rape for men (1 in 6 or 5).
Err, its actually the exact same reason that Chris had to stop being friends with women in his story, and its what kirun explained a few pages back. Its because women, all women, lack the capability of empathy with men. It was a really difficult concept for me to grasp, a few years back, but once I realized that, it brought the world into far greater clarity than what I had previously thought. Beond any hormone, or physical differences, I would argue that empathy is the greatest divider between what defines a woman, and what defines a man.
Edit: to expand and answer lithose's question, basically, women marginalize men, because "real men" wouldn't be offended nor, in actuality, even be having this type of conversation with them at all. Because you are not of interest to her reproductive needs, aka "whining" your opinion is less valid, and women use dismissive language because those men are of a lower social status. If she wanted to fuck you, your opinion on gender would become her opinion, and there would be no arguement, because biology...no different than how many of the most famous femists end up marrying the richest and most powerful men. They can't fight biology, they simply aren't attracted to men with lower sexual market value.
TL;DR: women think its pathetic when men complain because they don't want to fuck men with problems. Men that don't complain are more attractive to women because a more successful man has nothing to complain about, because he's #winning
War Brides |
Empathy |
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
i would say so too. that post was a joke heh. I usually use sympathy as a mean of illustrating that I am affectionate to some degree to women nowadays. Get things done. I know it's bullshit but I do it anyhow since it's expected of me...
it's so odd for me to emphasize my step dad's struggle in this family while rest of female members in my family doesn't.
EDIT: man, starting to think tanoob may be a woman for real lol. that'd be hilarious. I once PMed aamina when everyone was attacking him and shit, for him to walk away and stuff. Don't remember his response exactly, but I don't think I liked it.