can men be feminists

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: can men be feminists

Post by chaz wyman »

Outsider wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Can't you read? I did not tell him to go.
Good, that you know your place in this forum. I'll accept that apology.

I did not direct that comment at you.

I would never apologise to a person who can't settle on one avatar/identity on the Forum, Satty
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

Ha!!!
:lol:
Once more that judgment of yours comes through.
Only I and Outsider knows how funny this is.

He is from my forum, but not I.

Turd, unlike you, I only use one avatar and for the past few years only one moniker.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote:Outsider is from my forum...
But yet he comes here and questions "inspiration"...

... and I see thru his act, that of a stooge for 'sadder'...

to which he denies like a failed student caught cheating.

Nice 'outhouse'... and brave of you.

And using this board rather than 'sadder's forum... sad.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

That Texan Turd is too clever for one such as I.

I have been caught in a ruse, a ploy, a pretense, a toy.
:oops:
The shame....the shame.

:wink:
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Do you really feel caught? I think you simply talk...

You know, Sadder, you have a lot to offer those who'd care to read you. But for some reason only known by you, you are self-destructive, injecting a continual flow of personal attacks in between quite lucid thoughts diminishing their significance. I'm sure you're cognizant of the fact that whenever someone is reading your ideas, one stumbles over these needless attack words which does nothing other than interrupts the flow that may have begun when the read began. This is analogous to traveling down a pleasant country road enjoying the scenery and bip! a pothole that will never be repaired because the street keeper thinks whenever a traveler hits the pothole that somehow it's amusing... but pitifully, it's only amusing to the misguided humor of the street keeper.

Have I used derogatory words within my own posts? Indeed I have. I have used them because I feel I have reached rock bottom... the same low point that you (and others) have reached in an attempt to communicate on your self-made level. But I tire of it, take a respite from the negativity, as I'm sure other readers must also do. That is not why people come to these forums. These forums and the magazine are not specialty areas for philosophers to exchange ideas as much as they are for the curious who wish to know more about philosophy, students taking courses that wish to know a little more, for those who have never been taught anything about philosophy and find the forums and/or magazine a launching pad for what may be a lifelong study... the explorers and seekers looking for answers to questions they have struggled with.

Indeed, 'sadder', "Know Thyself" and once you fully comprehend the depth of those two words, I trust you will rise up and allow your otherwise interesting talks/ideas and commentaries to take center place, swept clear of the negativity. You'd take some real satisfaction in doing so, discovering another level of your potential that is screaming to get out of the prison you have created for yourself, once believing that space to be a safe haven from the criticisms you have taken over the years for expressing those things you love. One can never be the authentic being life offers without extinguishing the dark clouds of negativity that are defenses from a dark, cold, unknown outside perceived as a danger to the all too fragile ego. Your ideas, your words suffer from the negativity your have interjected throughout them. Bring those words out into the light and allow them to speak for themselves.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

You have no clue what is happening and why, do ya Texas Turd?
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote:You have no clue what is happening and why, do ya Texas Turd?
I'm far more aware than you'll ever know.

You'd be ignorant to refuse what I have told. So you won't. You're not ignorant.

BTW, don't waste your energy calling me childish names. It really doesn't phase me at all. Seriously.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

Funny that you bring it up then, no Texas Turd?

What you do not understand, imbecile, is why I am using epithets.
You tell yourself that it's because I'm insecure, part of you understands that I am frustrated with stupidity and am venting - the latter is partially true - but you can't imagine any other motive so instead you settle for the least flattering, towards me, which is derived from you transposing your own psychology upon me.

Moron...could it also be possible that these epithets are my true and honest assessment of most of you?
Do you assume, imbecile, that because I insult you I must insult everyone, or that I might not really mean it?

Texan Steer, why do you impose your purposes and moralities upon me?
just because a needy, fag, like you, could not find any other higher purpose than to connect with humanity or help others or be acknowledged and respected by everyone, does not mean all are as weak and pathetic as that.
Can it be possible that I do not consider you humans and I feel no obligation towards the mass of filth out there, allowed to replicate and preserve its weakness and stupidity without being culled?

Douche-bag my love, my loyalty, my trust, my compassion, my respect, is not as cheap as a whore's affections. I do not just sell them to anyone or give them away to all.
These are your christian moralities, not mine.
I am not dependent on popularity or seek mass approval, you imbecile; my pride and my self-esteem is not influenced by the judgments of apes, nor to I seek their tenderness and friendship.

I have discriminating tastes, Turd, I like fine wines, beautiful art, sophisticated females, well-crafted food...I have a more sensitive palate.
All of you are piles of feces served on a silver platter.
I think I'll pass.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote: You tell yourself that it's because I'm insecure, part of you understands that I am frustrated with stupidity and am venting - the latter is partially true - but you can't imagine any other motive so instead you settle for the least flattering, towards me, which is derived from you transposing your own psychology upon me.
A good example of transference... switching the subject to favor your own shaky position. Not uncommon.
Satyr wrote:...could it also be possible that these epithets are my true and honest assessment of most of you?
Do you assume, imbecile, that because I insult you I must insult everyone, or that I might not really mean it?
Sadder... other than publicly acknowledging "these epithets are my true and honest assessment of most of you" which is no shock but a curiosity, I believe you 'really mean it', like a child stamping his foot to show that he, too, is a hu'man.
Satyr wrote:these epithets are my true and honest assessment of most of you why do you impose your purposes and moralities upon me?

Doth do complain to much... I'm not imposing anything on you but rather telling you how you are viewed by me and many others... and there is no comparison to be had with "fine wines, beautiful art, sophisticated females, well-crafted food"... material goods that are as shallow as your philosophical rants attempting to prove all men are scum and to be ignored, while YOU, know of all the social graces and are endowed with special gifts that give you the right to judge others. But in reality, you are just as limited and needy as the rest of hu'manity. There is nothing special that I've witnessed other than your interest in Philosophy which you seem to feel is only worthy of your own interpretation.
Satyr wrote:Can it be possible that I do not consider you humans and I feel no obligation towards the mass of filth out there, allowed to replicate and preserve its weakness and stupidity without being culled?
Anything is possible but possibilities are only as good as the ability to act upon them. Placing yourself upon a pedestal for no other reason than to say to yourself, "I'm above the commoner.." is only deceiving yourself with this artificial edifice you have created in our own mind... a necessity to fulfill a void within, one of lacking that disturbs you and ultimately is in control of your life. You fail to fully embrace, "Know Thyself" knowing your own weaknesses without understanding how to overcome them. Fine wines, artwork and women certainly never cured anyone of ignorance... ignoring the problems within that haunt you.
Satyr wrote:my love, my loyalty, my trust, my compassion, my respect, is not as cheap as a whore's affections. I do not just sell them to anyone or give them away to all.
Again your admitting your insecurity here. These things in your head you consider beyond the reach of just anyone... gawd, how low could 'sadder' get by allowing a mere common man ANY of his wondrous love, loyalty, trust, compassion, respect...? Values you have mis-characterized as being reserved for 'Special People," yourself uppermost.
Satyr wrote:These are your christian moralities, not mine.
MY Christian morals? Like different from your own Christian morals..?
This is not about morality or religions that we're talking about. This is about your proclamation to "Know Thyself" and how you have completely missed the depth of those two words.

Knowing oneself is a spiritual experience that words clumsily attempt to explain but yet many have adequately attempted it. This does not mean such an experience did not exist to the individual solely based upon an inadequate definition. Knowing you enjoy wines, art and beautiful women (pretty common interests given the subjective nature of "fine" and 'beautiful") you seem to have embraced as a definition of who you are. That is not knowing thyself. Far from it. What you have created for yourself on this board is an illusion so as to veil yourself in a mystery... a character out of a novel that can be whatever they choose to make themselves... and you have chosen "satyr" as witnessed by the way you envision yourself, that mysterious and dangerous looking goat-like persona with devilish looking eyes.... that is the avatar YOU picked to reflect YOUR SELF... for others to respond and react to. But, and you know this all too well, this is not YOU, the real inner you. You are filled with fear and suspicion, as I have spoken about earlier, and YOU yourself chooses to be stand-off-ish with your demeanor and characterization of that unknown Self within.
Satyr wrote:I am not dependent on popularity or seek mass approval...; my pride and my self-esteem is not influenced by the judgments of apes, nor to I seek their tenderness and friendship.
A self-serving, needless comment... even beyond you. You emphasize popularity and approval with the word "mass"... as in many, multiples. Though you feel not dependent upon those multiples... deep within you you actually would embrace a mass acceptance quicker than could shout "wow!" were it to magically happen. You think of all the lovely excesses your ego could indulge in - better and more expensive fine wines, more expensive artworks and the adoration of those beautiful women you so admire. That is you ego demanding these material hooks to sway you from "Knowing Thyself." But you'd do it in a heartbeat. "Sadder", despite your denials of what and who you are, you are just as much a simpleton and ignoramus as all the rest of the world that you feel are worthless. You feel that same worthlessness in yourself. That is where all those material loves come into your life - diversions from reality, masking your own insignificance. But don't be ashamed... it happens so easily with the best of intentions but before you know it what you have created within you has shadowed your original face and you become this character that feels that you are beyond the pale.... you know so much more than we petty characters on the stage, "all of you are piles of feces served on a silver platter." Please... you act like a fool when you attempt to give credence to yourself... you become the very feces you speak of.

An incredible waste of talent... character suicide. And for what? to merely piss others off. Amazing.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Outsider wrote:That's what defines Your Slave Mentality.
Outsider, outsider... how many times have I seen those two words around here? Not only from you but your 'master'. And you further cheapen yourself by attempting to dis' me with but yet another "slave mentality' in hope of getting a pat on your back from 'sadder'.

What else will you do to be acknowledged? I won't go there. It's too easy.

Really, outhouse, you verbal assaults are akin to spitballs missing their target... simply an unnecessary annoyance to any decent conversation. You're a good student of 'sadder' ... you use all the right phrases and insults. Very original, son... your mom would be proud.

Now be a good boy and shove off and learn something that will expand your mind and not further poison it.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

As we can see - returning this thread to its original subject - women are far less fanatical about feminism than these effete males.
I've explained why the emasculated male becomes a fanatical defender of feminism.

It is not only a beta-male display but it is a defend of investments already made and costs already rendered.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

Some egos - self - express themselves directly, clearly, honestly...other frail, sickly, cowardly egos, hide behind gods, ideals, authorities...pretending they are humble.

The most arrogant religion ever invented is the one professing humility and love: Christianity.

Imagine what confused arrogance it would take to believe that you deserve eternity and that your life should be overseen by an absolute entity.

It is usually the ego that feels unable to compete directly which humbles itself behind an other, using him like a shield against those they cannot face openly.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote:As we can see - returning this thread to its original subject - women are far less fanatical about feminism than these effete males.
no joke, 'sadder', those freaking effete males are a real threat to any philosopher worth their oats. I've witnessed great philosophers take their lives knowing effete males were in the area rather than confronting them. Sad to think these educated minds were unaware that all have purpose in this life... as a wise Buddhist monk once said: "everything is perfect as it is." Live by that every moment and don't get caught up in the past and a future that is never here. Healthy for the mind and a healthy mind is an honest and giving mind.
Satyr wrote:I've explained why the emasculated male becomes a fanatical defender of feminism.
dang it, sorry I missed that one. I'll bet it was right on, eh? I hope you mentioned man's instinct to protect the woman from predators of every kind. That's why our species has been able to successfully evolve over the past 200,000 years. If the predators eliminated the females, we wouldn't be here talking about it. Thankfully life provides the instinct to not overgraze the fields and not feed off the healthiest of prey that will continue providing nourishment.
Satyr wrote:It is not only a beta-male display but it is a defend - :?: - of investments already made and costs already rendered.
naturally. we have the alpha male within every species along with the beta male working in harmony to provide and protect the societal network from which they originated. but don't forget the charlie male (a, b, c) that does the fishing, primarily tuna.

[don't you have a spell checker on your computer? you make more misspellings than anyone else on this board. get modern, eh?]


btw congratulations on omitting any trash talk... looks good.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: can men be feminists

Post by Satyr »

That's because I was not talking to you douche-bag.

You are trash...and to trash I talk the language of trash.

Please focus on being my proof reader and do not mind the meanings and the concepts.

I certainly love the world as it is...and I describe it so...digging it our of the pollution retards, like you, try to hide it under.
I like the world, nature, so much that I do not want you to change...even if a retard, like you, could.
You make my life easier and you distinguish me.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: can men be feminists

Post by mtmynd1 »

Satyr wrote:Some egos - self - express themselves directly, clearly, honestly...other frail, sickly, cowardly egos, hide behind gods, ideals, authorities...pretending they are humble.
Of course.. it's that old voodoo duality that never stops...
Satyr wrote:The most arrogant religion ever invented is the one professing humility and love: Christianity.

Methinks your use of the word, 'invented' is incorrect. Christianity wasn't invented rather it was accepted, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Jesus was not a Christian but an enlightened being akin to Siddartha along with many other that were not religiously followed. This is in part due to our own evolution which is ongoing. We are the youngest species on the planet and have yet to master life as the rest of the lifeforms that have made Earth their home far longer than ourselves. We are incomplete but seem to accept the challenge to survive as well as the rest of life. Our effort is to attain our full potential, which many equate with enlightenment.
Imagine what confused arrogance it would take to believe that you deserve eternity and that your life should be overseen by an absolute entity.
I really don't concern myself with that belief system. Ultimately amongst all 7 Billion + hu'man inhabitants upon this singular planet, each in their own way find the path to survival which benefits them best. Those who survive outlast those who are unable... it's always been that way for any species. The arrogance would be those that judge that enormous population as being less than the critic himself who assumes an undeserved superiority based solely upon his/her own opinion of their self.
It is usually the ego that feels unable to compete directly which humbles itself behind an other, using him like a shield against those they cannot face openly.
How often does that happen in our world? Abandon the ego and eliminate that fear. I trust there are far more than counted who do so without bringing attention to themselves.
Post Reply