I would be careful with that because all of those talking points are deeply rooted in the m-word, and even liberal guys who vote dem fall easily for them. Most guys fall for them, actually, regardless of political beliefs.
First, That there^, is not an argument. In the same way that saying: "carefull now, saying Jezus was human borders on Blasphemy!"
I applaud you for making the distinction between -woman's perspective- and -radical feminist-. Since they are indeed not the same in any way and infact most women do not identify as (radical) feminist. At best a slight majority (60% orso) identify as "somewhat feminist" (e.a. equal rights under the law, equality of oppertunity etc.)
Yes? Is that so hard to believe for you? Where do you think all your hated MRA/incel what have you and the figures of Tate come from if its not a reaction to that?
I wasn't trying to argue with you or refute anything. That is just a fact - those talking points *are* what these preachy alpha male types spout.First, That there^, is not an argument. In the same way that saying: "carefull now, saying Jezus was human borders on Blasphemy!"
You're not rebutting anything when you do so, you're just labeling things as "heresy". I don't care about labeling, I do care about good (counter) arguments that actually rebut and/or confirm mine.
second: No, its not. Misogeny = Hatred of Women. Not critique (or even just mere observation) of feminist ideology. Both are mutually exclusive.
I applaud you for making the distinction between -woman's perspective- and -radical feminist-. Since they are indeed not the same in any way and infact most women do not identify as (radical) feminist. At best a slight majority (60% orso) identify as "somewhat feminist" (e.a. equal rights under the law, equality of oppertunity etc.)
But then again, I to identify positively with that having a wife and all so that would make me a feminist by that logic
Yes? Is that so hard to believe for you? Where do you think all your hated MRA/incel what have you and the figures of Tate come from if its not a reaction to that?
- There are desaffected/ disenfranchised men.
- Feminism ís a doctrine that (seeks to) place women above men at every turn, seen as men are viewed as part of the alleged male-supremacy/patriarchy.
- There's edgelords like Andrew Tate who's an attractive (toxic) example for them, and someone who doesn't hate them the way feminists, and you, do.
what you don't seem to ask yourself is: What created the (ideological) void/ market for someone like tate to become as succesfull as he did?
What positive thing does radical feminism offer these men other then: "kill yourself, you loser oppressor" (even though they've probably never even spoken to a women, let alone oppress one)
?
it is not a fact that "those" specific talking points, So the ones that critique feminist theory and its effects, are misogenystic in their logos or essence. which is what you claimed they where rooted in.
I think most people actually can. I think (radical) Feminists because of their doctrine simply have a huge problem differentating between criticism of its ideology and > therefor hatred-towards-women. But i'm happy to agree to disagree with you on that particular bit. Again, no fan of incels or tate for that matter.
Misogeny is indeed no excuse, Holding an anti feminist perspective however perfectly excuses a man seen as, (again)
anti-feminism and misogyny are not the same, no matter how badly you want too.and no how often you (willfully) refuse to make the distinction.yea i'd like to see some numbers on that, how many people actually broke up or got divorced over Roe v wade. Because I don't think its all that many. I think the majority of women who're at those protests calling for "sex strike" aren't married or in any sort of a serious relationship to begin with but you're free to prove me wrong on that
, i'll happily admit thats just an assertion on my part.
The only person benefitting from “hustlers university” is hustlers university
There have been a few recent research articles where people deep into the incel scene genuinely believe they are victims
Yep and all of them benefit from maintaining the existing social structures or "going back to the good old days"Where there are desperate people, there are those who will prey on them to line their own pockets or further their own agenda.
Tate is just one of them.
The political spectrum has been full of them time immemorial.
I have to say, I'm not a fan of Peterson personally, but I get why he appeals to people.
There is no justification to idolizing Jordan Peterson, or even thinking that "he makes good points" when women are being...I have to say, I'm not a fan of Peterson personally, but I get why he appeals to people.
But that's the point isn't it? The polarisation of literally EVERYTHING that is prevalent today would have you take a side of him being either some sort of infallible genius or the devil incarnate himself - no in-between
He really doesn't matter enough to me to get angry about.
at least on reddit it's usually guys pushing the culture war nonsense lolHe really doesn't matter enough to me to get angry about.
I'm not a fan of what he's peddling and there are far bigger fish to fry in the grand scheme of things tbh, especially with the tiresome culture war nonsense we're all subjected to these days.
oh I don't think he's infallible, there's lot of points I disagree with him on. So things like aristotilian philosphy and AGW and actually side more on a lot of topics with his frennemy, Sam Harris. A close friend of hitch and part of the 4 horsemen you might be familiar with.I have to say, I'm not a fan of Peterson personally, but I get why he appeals to people.
But that's the point isn't it? The polarisation of literally EVERYTHING that is prevalent today would have you take a side of him being either some sort of infallible genius or the devil incarnate himself - no in-between
I like my public figures to be less than perfect, that's what makes them human after all.
Bringing this around full circle and somehow back on topic, I've always been a big fan of the late Christopher Hitchens. Also a very divisive figure in some circles and even as someone who admires his work and writing, he got an awful lot of stuff wrong as well. Just a human after all
there's no real justification to idolize anyone or anything i'd say, including Idolization of (extreme) feminism. Everything is by definition a human or a human construct and as such, fallible.
maybe you should get off reddit
I think you are right actually. Il definitely check out the thing between Sadhguru and a dutch shamen. ( i am half dutch, my dutch side must be where i have that trance herratage or something seeing as so many dutch producersThere's a really fun back & forth between him and Wim Hof, A dutch "Shaman" if you will who's Cold Therapy, breathing and meditation routine i've been following.
He's fun to watch. Imust say though that (but you can disagree with me on this) I don't really consider him (even though he has quite a few books under his belt) an public intellectual though. Same goes for someone Shapiro. They don't bring that much groundbreaking or new ideas to the table. Shapiro in his judeochristian traditionalism and Sadhguru with Hinduïsm/ dhyana yoga
Public Influencers? yes,
and, if its your cup of tea, Sprititual advisors? (especially in case of Sadhguru) definitly.
but public intellectuals? well it depends, I'd go with: not so much with either
)
heh, you brittons are an equal if not bigger force m8.I think you are right actually. Il definitely check out the thing between Sadhguru and a dutch shamen. ( i am half dutch, my dutch side must be where i have that trance herratage or something seeing as so many dutch producers