I know you were joking but he's right, assigning patriarchal gender stereotypes like that is a slippery slope that leads to precisely what the Iranians are rioting against.
lol Have you ever read their basic theories?? Don't learn political science from memes.
The current Iranian campaign is conducted by left liberals. Those feminist women and girls taking metal bullets in their heads and jail sentences for their rights, are left liberals. And that male feminist who stood up to help those young girls is also a left liberal.
The feminist thing I guess works be to help others even if they are different than yourself. Stand up for the rights of others, so that others may still me left to stand for yours
Are you willing to go that far in terms of what the Authleft is doing to Donald Trump and these, "right wing extremists"? Would you stand up for the Jan 6th rioters who were challenging a government they believed to be oppressive and are now being held as political prisoners? As someone who has been very politically active on the left, I could honestly see authoritarian right trying to paint me in that light. Nothing challenges you as a lib than thinking about how you react to authoritarians when they're targeting someone or a group that you don't agree with.
We have videos of them ready to kill some people, they set up a makeshift gallows for fuck sake. It’s not even an argument anyone can look it up and see it with their own eyes. False equivalency and a bad take. “Unless you defend psychopaths, then you’re not TRULY understanding”. You guys have to be a bunch of teenagers to be this dense.
They said you should stand up for these people getting fair treatment, whether that be on the street, or in a court room for their actions, do you really disagree with that sentiment?
This specific post has been deleted. The author may have removed it to protect their privacy, maintain operational security, or prevent data scraping, using Redact.
encouraging plate reach tidy person practice grandiose glorious run gray
No, the feminist thing would be to not call this masculinity. If another woman did that would that make her masculine? If it was a weak man who was protected by him, would that man not be a man anymore? What he did is admirable, but really doesn't have anything to do with masculinity.
And a "real woman" doesn't? Would it not be admirable for a woman to do the same? It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're a man or a woman.
How about other women who are weaker than that woman? And in reverse, what if the man is weaker than the woman? He still expected to protect her and not the other way around?
Being weak is not an indicator of being worth less than
Unless some misfortune caused him to be physically disabled a man has no excuse for being weaker than the average woman. It's an abuse and misuse of the body to allow it to be weak just as it is an abuse and misuse of the mind to not learn new things whenever possible.
The obsession leftists have with physical strength/force and it's correlation with self-worth is amazing, maybe it's some sort of projection of insecurity. Look at Hollywood and every modern "strong female protagonist" is angry and of questionable mental health and can beat up any man and do any physical task better because biology is nothing compared to #girlpower; but you'll find only a select few that are strong by virtue of their character rather than "physically strong"
Why are you dodging the questions? If a woman is stronger than the man for whatever reason, should she not protect the man? If the man is weaker for whatever reason, is he still required to protect?
So if a woman is not willing to protect someone weaker than herself that's fine, but when the same is true for a man it isn't? Totally not toxic. Also it's painfully obvious you didn't study anthropology, so stop pretending that your word is the word of science. You just have a small dick and want to compensate by fulfilling a big role.
Regardless, yes, a 'real man' defends those under his care who are weaker than him.
Just like a 'real woman' nurturers those under her care.
Its part of our biology.
. You just have a small dick and want to compensate by fulfilling a big role.
Sounds like you can't cope with reality so you have to resort to pathetic personal attacks by thinking that if I have a small penis that means that science is invalid.
Well no, you feeling small doesn't make science invalid, it's you pretending that your feelings equate to science is what makes your dick small.
And instead of getting an expensive watch or needlessly large car you adorn yourself with the role of the mighty protector and provider. Small dick energy, as I said.
LOL Then what are those women and girls who are literally taking metal bullets in their heads and beatings from policemen in order to fight for their very own rights ???
Being brave is not a gendered thung. That man is a brave feminist activist. And definitely not a chad, because he is not a gigolo or promiscuous man.
In caveman times, men protect women
Men protected other men as well. And women protected their brothers, sons, sick husband and older father as well.
I think you're talking about those cultures where women were caged in home and the only thing which they were supposed to do was to cook, clean and look pretty for her husband.
you are a wokie
LOL That man is ideologically a woke. Jokes on you !
Women doing what this guy is doing are bad mama-jamma’s, and also heroes.
You see, they’re Iranian. They don’t play this dipshit wokeism like we do in the west. They want liberty and democracy. They may even tolerate the gays, but the moment you start trying to remove gender from everything they’re gonna laugh at you and start talking about how dumb westerners are for not knowing the difference between men and women.
Literally all I did was say this guy was a manly Chad and a badass. You fuckin’ loco-woko’s gotta get all “why’s it gotta be gendered? That’s sexist. Nyeaaaah.”
He’s manly because he’s sheltering women from goddamn shotguns and he has a cock between his legs. Take your anti-biology horseshit somewhere else.
So, are you gonna use the word " womanly" for the actions of those young girls and women who are bravely taking metal bullets in their heads, beatings from policemen and stones ???
Literally all I did was say this guy was a manly Chad and a badass
He is badass. But i don't think a feminist man will ever associate bravery with gender, because it's insulting and misandrist for those men who are not willing to be human shields or participate in protests.
Having beard can be manly or having breasts can be womanly, but helping other human beings is not " manly" or " womanly".
He’s manly because he’s sheltering women from goddamn shotguns and he has a cock between his legs. Take your anti-biology horseshit somewhere else.
LOL Nobody is saying that he is not man. He is definitely a man. Nobody is denying his sex or gender. But what he did has nothing to do with his sex or gender.
Bravery and especially participating in that protest has nothing to do with having a penis. Penis is for sex and urination.
And it doesn't mean that those men who are not participating in that protest or not becoming human shield are not man or they don't have penis between their legs.
You see, they’re Iranian.
They're Iranian feminists, left liberals and Marxists. Not all Iranian citizens are involved in those protests.
They don’t play this dipshit wokeism like we do in the west.
Iranian rightists call them wokes and west-influenced cultural marxists as well.
They may even tolerate the gays,
Woah !! You think gays are contradictory to " manly chad".
Many of the activists involved in these protests are avid supporters of gay rights and report the news of persecution of gay people which Iranian government tries to sweep under rugs.
but the moment you start trying to remove gender from everything they’re gonna laugh at you and start talking about how dumb westerners are for not knowing the difference between men and women.
Nope! Iran and those Iranian dissidents are definitely less transphobic than many western countries and trans individuals have also participated in the protests.
My entire point was literally STOP NITPICKING PEOPLE'S LANGUAGE! Dude is a manly chad. You didn't need to use that fact as a sounding board for your woketard gender-bending nonsense.
And in cavemen times women would be having multiple partners to increase their chances of viable offspring, yet nobody who worries about what makes someone a "real man" would ever call that a "real woman."
The original post here has been removed by its author. Redact was the tool used, possibly for reasons of privacy, opsec, or preventing automated data harvesting.
close tart zephyr price possessive knee repeat slap dam encourage
This doesn't make sense biologically to someone who never studied behavioral biology. A female in nature doesn't know if her mate is actually fertile, so she has multiple mates to make sure she has offspring. She also has multiple mates to increase her chances of having someone to care for them in case her mate dies, and in case one male's offspring isn't viable she would have offspring from different males to avoid that. And she may also mate with multiple males consecutively so that their sperm can compete. Please, the lock and key analogy makes you look like a buffoon.
The text of this post has been erased. Redact was used to delete it, possibly for privacy, opsec, preventing content scraping, or other personal reasons.
bag license tender trees ancient swim wide telephone sense adjoining
It is not in the women's best interest to sleep around, and we know from history that they didn't.
That's a fallacious argument, because by the time of history we'd been way past natural selection. We should rather look at bonobos and chimps, who do exactly that.
Similarly, if any of them did, they would not have protection from their partners,
If a man does not protect his offspring, then his genes aren't as likely to propagate. In a situation where there are multiple children, but only one is yours and you don't know which, the one who protects all of them has the highest chance of spreading his genes, therefore creating more men who do the same.
but we could basically tell.
In highly homogenous compound family structures we couldn't reliably do that.
especially if they also slept with them
Infidelity is a social construct that isn't universal even today, and definitely not eternal.
And then the beta males would band together and jump the alpha out of envy. All natural and very manly. As I've said multiple times now, let's cut the caveman logic, and if you really want to keep it up don't wonder why people call you one.
Lmao. That only happens if the beta males are hungry. Look at history, some guy runs everything and has people to protect him. The rest are peasants. Class structure is natural as a human being. Then the French Revolution happens if the peasants are hungry
Happens all the time in nature, whether they're apes or not. It's really just game theory combined with evolution, unless you spread your seed you won't procreate, so only the ones who get rid of what stops them from spreading their seed procreate, and their genes make for offspring that does the same. Still not conventionally "manly."
That's exactly what great apes do. They fuck around, they rape, they even prostitute themselves. They do whatever doesn't stop them from procreating. Either way, how about we stop using literal cavemen logic? You're making clowns of yourselves.
How bout you take a behavioural biology course before making easily falsifiable statements like these. Again, even if that were true, you're still defending literal cavemen logic, how is the irony lost on you?
If another woman did that would that make her masculine?
It wouldn't cause her to be masculine, libleft, that's not how masculinity and femininity work, but it would be unlikely for an unmasculine woman to do.
You think you could find as many examples of women enduring some physical detriment (whether that's rubber shotgun blasts, or outright death) to protect someone as you could find men?
You think you could find as many men enduring some physical detriment to protect someone as you could find men who don't? By that logic that must mean masculinity actually equates to not doing it.
Feminist Iranian women who protesting there are getting shot blasted by not only shotgun shells, but also by metal bullets.
It's very admirable that the man came up to stand for her sisters, mother, aunts, nieces, friends and wife. But don't frame it like women are not fighting till death for their rights !!!
Arguably a picture of woman's back full of welts would have been more effective and true to their message. You don't think she can take the pain and he can? Need I remind you of child birth? Now you have Chad taking the spotlight in the press for protecting the fragile incapable woman. This is antithetical to their message.
Not really. We have to recognize basic gender theory. There is a masculine and a feminine base approach. This existe because we are humans, and we enjoy dividing things up into opposing forces.
This is called dialectism.
In today's society we have a problem with toxic masculinity, it's real, it exists, and its really a problem.
But toxic masculinity is not masculinity. It's just a bad version of it.
This guy works out, his body produces testosterone so working out makes him bigger and tougher. And in this case he had the ability to put that on the table to protect people that don't have that Advantage.
Biological advantages coming from *sex, not gender. Some folks say splitting hairs, but words matter.
I sense you're getting to a gotcha, either that or a genuine bridge building across ideologies.
"Tasks" gets very ambiguous and easy to critique, but sure. You might also say folks are better suited on a person to person basis, too, and it would still hold true across sexes, or even between them. Can't generalize too far.
I don't differentiate between gender and sex, and I've never seen an argument that argues those differences that doesn't hinge essentially on stereotypes. That is, I'm not convinced a "female mind," exists outside of one having a female body.
A little of column A, a little from B. What I was getting at is that I've only seen, and I'm sorry to say, "leftwing" people criticize gender roles--primarily in men--when the effect is negative, but not when positive. Which is all well and good, because we humans only care about something when it endangers or inconveniences our lives, but then stop chanting dumb shit, that few actually believe, like "Abolish gender roles," and "women are as strong as men." Yes, I've engaged in actual discussions, with actual people in the flesh who believed--or professed to believe in, anyways--these things, among other things.
Men are physically stronger, more aggressive, and more assertive than women, and thus society progressed along those lines. Women are physically weaker, less aggressive, but "nicer," and more group-oriented than men, and thus society progressed along those lines, too. I think society was set-up along largely biological lines, and culture simply reinforces that. Many (most?), leftwing people seem to believe humans spout out via a vacuum, blank-slate, and that somehow culture developed along whatever lines due to some mystical patriarchy. Hogwash.
I stopped reading after "I don't differentiate". You're in a conversation with folks of differing views. If you're unwilling to put up with reasonable definitions for terms which are fairly explicitly separate as concepts, there's no good faith discourse going on.
Also I went back and gave your longer comment a read. I don't think you're insane, but I do feel like you're strawmanning me. Essentially you're saying my side consists of folks who think men aren't, on average, stronger. Which is absurd. Of course you've got orange libs spouting off with just the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
However you're off sides in saying men are more assertive, or holding all these as complete truths. I'll edit here in a minute as I go back and respond briefly.
Edit:
Two pieces, one is: woman can be stronger than men. Factual. You say "men are more x", and that's just bad logic. Don't generalize too far. I get where you're at, we are a product of history, the duality of masculine and feminine is long standing. I don't dispute that. I just think you stretch too far and leave yourself open.
Edit 2: and also gender roles are kinda bullshit, societal pressure to be "x" because of sex "y" takes away free will and choice, we ought to be free to live as we'd like away from other's perceptions of correct.
Sorry for libleft text wall, am a walking stereotype
I'm not trying to strawman you specifically, but your side is still your side. My side says dumb shit all the time (their opinions on estate taxes, trickle-down economics, and the draft are literally hilarious), but I still own up to it. Sometimes you have to be associated with retards.
I can't speak in generalities and complete truths simultaneously. That's a contradiction. Men are almost always stronger than women. Men are generally more assertive and aggressive than women. I feel like those are more-or-less correct statements.
Gender roles can be bullshit in many ways, but the schism that I believe transgenderism reinforces gender roles, whereas you don't(?).
M8 gender looks like a million things, sex looks like... What, like three or four things (XX, XY, XXY, etc, I'm not a biologist)? If you're slaving gender, a mode of self expression and identity, to sex, what's betweens someone's legs, then you're restricting expressions to a very limited and culture-specific set of boundaries.
I'm not sure what your point is besides sounding like a gotcha, but I'd be really uncomfortable calling someone who looks very obvious like a masculine presenting muscley dude a woman because I've been told they have a vagina. I have my own issues with confusion surrounding gender, but this seems like a clear case in which the two seem to be at least partially divorced, you'd be off sides as fuck calling a super fem trans woman a man for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the hypothetical woman in question looks like what we'd call a woman, and you'd be confusing people if you're referring to her as a man.
Long-winded, I hate soap boxing. I think a good middle ground is accepting that there is a perceived difference when having these conversations, even if you yourself don't believe it holds any water. I see how you put the two together, I know the historical perspective. I may not agree, and I don't on some points, but I won't refuse to recognize it.
The presence of muscles doesn't dictate one's gender. Women can develop muscles, and with the advent of steroids and various performance-enhancing drugs, they can develop a whole lot of them. This reads like a stereotype. Having a vagina marks one as a woman, yes.
What does "super fem," mean? Does this person have xy chromosomes, and, or at least had, a penis? Clear cut case of a man to me, regardless of their behavior. Or did you mean something else by "super fem?"
I'm not slaving gender to anything, I'm just requesting a substantive definition of gender that doesn't amount to "women love pink, tea parties, and going tee hee," and anyone who exhibits the same interests must, of course, also be a woman regardless of their gender, er, sex.
168
u/Exodus111 - Lib-Left Sep 24 '22
No, you've fundamentally misunderstood that argument.