519
520
521

Red Pill ExampleWhy increasing number of women don't want to be identified as feminists anymore, and as humanists instead, because of how fucked up feminism really has become (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by tekn0_

Came across this interesting article: https://archive.is/O8oDp

Here are some interesting bits:

Several female celebrities, by publicly distancing themselves from feminism, have caused considerable upset in feminist circles. First there was actress Susan Sarandon, who told the Observer a couple of years ago, ‘I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating’. Then, earlier this month, fellow actress Meryl Streep echoed Sarandon’s sentiments: ‘I am a humanist; I am for nice, easy balance.’ And, last week, Marion Cotillard said she does not ‘qualify’ herself as a feminist because ‘in the word feminism there’s too much separation’.

Clearly these actresses are intelligent to make millions of dollars. Not surprising that they are able to see through the bullshit of modern day feminism.

However.

The backlash against these women has been extreme.

Why doesn't that surprise us here in trp?

One article dismissed Sarandon’s statement, saying ‘she didn’t mean it’. And online feminist hub Jezebel published a piece claiming that ‘Queen Meryl’ was ‘talking directly out of her butt’. It seems that it is officially unacceptable to refuse to call yourself a feminist. What these feminists don’t seem to realise is that disallowing dissent is tyrannical.

Seems like someone is up for a rude awakening.

But the most insulting part of the hysterical response to these women expressing their political views is the idea that they were somehow ignorant of what being a feminist entails. Why doesn't that surprise me again? Sarandon, Streep and Cotillard have a point about the divisiveness of contemporary feminism. It views the world through the narrow prism of gender and argues that women and men are inherently different. This is evident in the current feminist policing of sex, which rests on the assumption that all men are potential rapists and therefore women are doomed to live as victims. In this way, feminists refuse to believe in the potential for human beings to do good rather than bad, to have healthy sexual lives free of interfering rules and regulations.

Well. Clearly we don't want to identify tits and penis with a specific gender, but rather promote a perpetual victim mentality that oppresses the male gender to the point that would make the other gender free to survive and thrive in the Sexual market. Well.. If that doesn't help you root out feminism out of your mind, this nail in the coffin will:

Finally, contemporary feminists do not believe that women are independent, free-thinking individuals. Feminists promote a cliquey, sisterhood mentality, but not through a collective and positive sharing of ideas. They’re the kind of group you’d encounter at school who would shun you if you weren’t wearing the right kind of hairband. Today’s feminism is opposed to criticism and nuance, refusing to allow women to form their own opinions or challenge preconceived ideas. And feminists call for the state to intervene when they want an opposing view silenced, and launch Twitter wars against dissenting views.

Why doesn't the words like sisterhood mentality or intervention of state surprise us here in trp again? Call in redpill awareness. Now the author, who is a woman actually, goes on to say why many women are trying to be humanists instead of feminists, and delineates the thought process below.

Our humanism is universal. We are not bothered with gender constraints and do not believe in biological determinism. Rather than assuming that all men are inherently programmed to mistreat women, we believe that human interaction should be free from constraint. Private lives are the business of private individuals, not the state. Where feminists are intolerant in their approach to disagreeable views, calling for the silencing of offensive speech or the banning of unpleasant aspects of life, humanists actively take on opposing political views. As humanists, we believe in unequivocal and uncompromising freedom of speech, and the free exchange of ideas between people, in order to reach a more progressive outcome.

It was refreshing for me to see women waking up. At least the ones who are intelligent enough. Though I don't think that changes any of their biological nature for sexual dynamics.

TLDR:A Woman calling themselves a humanist, instead of feminist is a matter of time. Atleast the ones that are willing to do their own thinking and is in touch with reality.


[–]Endorsed ContributorSarcasticus 105 points106 points  (4 children)

It's semantics. Women don't want to be called a feminist, but feminist views have become the de facto view in society.

[–]1jb_trp 66 points67 points  (1 child)

One article dismissed Sarandon’s statement, saying ‘she didn’t mean it’. And online feminist hub Jezebel published a piece claiming that ‘Queen Meryl’ was ‘talking directly out of her butt’. It seems that it is officially unacceptable to refuse to call yourself a feminist.

When are these feminists going to learn that "no" means no? I think consent is sexy.

[–]CharlieIndiaShitlord 7 points8 points  (0 children)

When feminism becomes completely untenable as a position and society has thoroughly rejected it, these same women will jump on board the mantle of the humanist and egalitarian movements in order to twist those towards their purposes.

They will suffer a setback, and then it will be more of the same shit with a different shovel.

[–]Rebikhan 109 points110 points  (3 children)

Don't be fooled by this. Feminism itself is just the social movement of women who desire more reward for less responsibility. As men and women alike are coming to this understanding, more women shy away from the word because they don't want the men in their lives to think of them as manipulative and lazy.

As /u/girlwriteswhat has stated before, the problem isn't the word. It's the women who, whether or not they identify as "feminists," use the social and legal results of feminism the way looters view a race riot. They may not be on the front lines but they sure as hell don't mind that they have all the legal power in a marriage or that they can accuse a man of rape on the drop of a hat.

Bottom line, ignore this claptrap. Humanist, feminist, whatever. Women want more power for less work in their relationships with men. Know this fact and act accordingly.

[–]Mintaka7 17 points18 points  (0 children)

In other words, when moderates and radicals aim for the same end, beware of the moderates.

[–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because women tend to be naturally more passive, it's fairly obvious why the good women in their tiny numbers are doing nothing - and that is evil enough. This is why so many men don't see a way out of this and argue to simply enjoy the decline. Because there are women out there, even feminists who have identified that their movement needs to clean house badly... but they've seen how they get shunned and how they'd have to sacrifice themselves in order to make any headway. They still don't do anything because they don't want to have to make hard decisions. And so the shit keeps piling up in the streets.

[–]Redasshole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As /u/girlwriteswhat has stated before, the problem isn't the word. It's the women who, whether or not they identify as "feminists," use the social and legal results of feminism

I reallyyyyy disagree with you. Everyone would use an unfair advantage (except Buddhist monks maybe). The problem is the people who created this unfair advantage.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 166 points167 points  (34 children)

New wrapper same product. It is to appeal to the male market. That way it is easier to recruit more male SJW to defend them. Also as OP pointed out, the ones who are joining this are actresses, this is because feminists are usually ugly.

[–]darkstout 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I used to subscribe to The Humanist magazine. Every other cover story related to feminism in some way. Today's humanism movement is liberal, anti-religion, anti-conservative, and obsessed with identity politics and who is the most oppressed. They have manipulated the humanist philosophy to suit their own political agenda. It's sickening.

[–]ObservantOmega 49 points50 points  (21 children)

Not only this, there's something that goes beyond recruiting SJW white knights. Women will never voluntarily abandon the privileges and rights they have gained. Distancing themselves from an evolutionary dead-end is normal, but it won't change the direction of the movement.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 30 points31 points  (19 children)

Comically enough OP for sucked in. Read exactly what they are saying.

‘I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating’.

Feminism is getting to had to sell, needs to be rebranded.

Our humanism is universal. We are not bothered with gender constraints and do not believe in biological determinism. Rather than assuming that all men are inherently programmed to mistreat women, we believe that human interaction should be free from constraint.

If you disect this statement ask the question why does it have this phrase phrase "Rather then assuming all men are inherently programmed to mistreat women" ?

If this is a humanist organization why does it use gender terms ? Why doesn't it say "Rather then assuming some human beings are inherently programmed to abuse other human beings ?"

Not faulting OP for getting sucked in. I dealt with so called humanists first hand, I got banned from their group ☺ So much for allowing differing opinions.

This humanist group had women running activities with lots of male orbitors helping them out ☺ And the humanist females thought that liberation should be they fuck lots of different guys while someone else pays for it ☺

Personally I would find it very liberating to be able to fuck lots of different women and have someone else pay for it, but I have no managed to figure out how to do that ☺

Edit: I forgot to add by definition they are a religion since they make an effort to promote their beliefs like religions do. Usually they are atheist but for them atheism has religious overtones.

I am a agnostic but I do not run around telling other people their life will be better if they stop believing in the invisible man in the sky. Versus they do so that is what makes them a religion.

I will actually argue that for some stupid fucks believing in the invisible man in the sky is good for them ☺

[–]Rathadin 16 points17 points  (7 children)

You're an atheist. Agnosticism concerns knowledge, not belief, or lack of belief in your case.

You're absolutely right about what these women are saying though. Feminism is finally being recognized for the bullshit it is, so its time to repackage it and hope everyone's stupid enough to buy the same shit from the same factory in a new shiny package.

Clearly, you didn't fall for that. I also find it hilarious you got banned from a "humanist" group. That's SJWs for you. New label, same mentality. Purge the group of wrongthink.

[–]theultimatewarriors 0 points1 point  (6 children)

What's the difference between atheism and agnostic here? I'm confused what you're differentiating into categories.

[–]Rathadin 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I'm not differentiating anything. I'm making the very reasonable assumption that you're an atheist based on these sentences in your post:

I do not run around telling other people their life will be better if they stop believing in the invisible man in the sky.

and

I will actually argue that for some stupid fucks believing in the invisible man in the sky is good for them

Now, its possible you are calling yourself a 'stupid fuck(s)'. But I don't think that's what you meant. Given your clear disdain for believers, it would be safe to say you have a lack of belief in gods, thus making you an atheist, not necessarily an agnostic, since its possible to be both.

By your admissions, its seems you are an agnostic atheist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdd3J0b43Bs

"Agnosticism addresses what you you know or claim you can know; its a knowledge question. Atheism and theism are not a knowledge question, atheism and theism are a belief question, they address what you believe or what you think you can believe."

[–]theultimatewarriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if you meant to reply to me, or the guy above. I am not both, but I did ask the question. I'm not a stupid fuck, but I'm also not a not a stupid fuck (double negative stupidness). I view myself as a pretty low level being in the universe who can't know what's beyond any knowledge I have. In some sense, I feel like a bacteria trying to make assumptions about what's above and beyond. I just really have no idea and it makes no difference to me, especially in the sense of proof for and against that limits a definitive guess.

[–][deleted] -5 points-5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Rathadin 2 points3 points  (2 children)

No. Not "no shit", because you can be an Agnostic Catholic and be perfectly acceptable in their faith system.

Honest Catholic priests, especially the scientists, will agree with you that the question of whether or not there is a God as defined by, in this case the Catholic faith, is an unknowable question. Thus it concerns knowledge.

It is not a semantic difference... its a very real difference rooted in someone's psychology. Just like when fucking Christian or Islamic nutjobs tell me they know there is a god. I ask them, "How?"

"I just do."

Then you don't actually know shit. I know water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. I can prove this scientifically. I am not agnostic on the question of water's composition. It is a known quantity; it is a provable quantity.

[–]theultimatewarriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. I'm of the camp that until it's proven or disproven, I don't make the assumption. Is there a god is a question that to me is unanswerable and a waste of my attention for the most purposes, which is why I was the one who asked above "what is the differentiation of agnostic and atheist here".

It's like two blind people arguing that brurple is a real color. Neither of them know for sure (unless they did have some tool using whatever faculties they had, but I'm already off topic...). I can't tell for sure that there is or isn't, there's some amount of proof both ways that leads to questions, but ultimately I'm fucking blind until I have a tool to go all the way to some other place or time. To assume there is or isn't with certainty is impossible to me. I do like your comment though. Upvoted

[–]alexistheman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you disect this statement ask the question why does it have this phrase phrase "Rather then assuming all men are inherently programmed to mistreat women" ?

Because an inherent plank of feminism is the concept that men hold total and absolute dominance over women. This has virtually never been the case in modern history. Women have always exercised some sort of power and influence, which is why feminism is in many cases an exercise in rewriting history. Take this letter from a battlefield:

"Is it indeed possible... that all the men you know feel they have their backs to the wall? Can none of them imagine new solutions? That would be a mark of their abasement such as would do them no honor; for, no matter how badly the affairs of state go, great minds and great courages steel themselves against their ill fortune. God may perform miracles when he pleases; I am praying that he may reawaken those feelings of hope amongst at least one man at your court." (1709)

When Madame des Ursins wrote this letter, she had been the de-facto prime minister of Spain for years. That letter was to none other than Louis XIV, and it was through her intrigues via Madame de Pompadour, the King's official mistress, that France won the War of the Spanish Succession. des Ursins nominally held no greater position than that of a senior courtier, but she understood how the game worked: how to be seductive and allay the fears of men, how to execute teamwork and how to play the game to her own advantage.

This is, of course, an esoteric example but what feminism seems to miss is that these women formed partnerships and alliances with their male counterparts. Marriage really was nothing more than a contract and it was expected that men -- especially powerful men -- would consort with a variety of different women. The focus was therefore on the family: how do we as a team build a future in order to ensure a good foundation for our children?

If this is a humanist organization why does it use gender terms ? Why doesn't it say "Rather then assuming some human beings are inherently programmed to abuse other human beings ?"

That is rather the point: we acknowledge that there are two sexes and, hopefully, that both bring something to the table.

Personally I would find it very liberating to be able to fuck lots of different women and have someone else pay for it, but I have no managed to figure out how to do that

Then start doing something, dress well, go to the gym and try and fail and then try and fail again until you get it right. You have to have your own angle.

I disagree with the concept that women automatically get something because of their sex. Certainly, you wouldn't be as charitable to a girl that lacks a certain something rather than one that has it. All these women have taken something: if you have forgotten the rules of the game, that's your fault.

That last sentence isn't meant to be caustic, but factual.

[–]NPK5667 2 points3 points  (6 children)

She said it that way because she was specifically addressing what feminists do, treat men as potential rapists. She wasnt addressing the other side of it so there was no reason to phrase it how you said. This is an action that is very specific to feminism and she pointed it out directly. I dont get why you would want her to include both sides in that phrase when its whole point is to point out flaws with feminism. Youre really stretching it man i dont get your logic.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0 points1 point  (5 children)

In that phrase when its whole point is to point out flaws with feminism.

You have answered your own question. So she is saying this humanism is designed to replace feminism. She is making straw men arguments I believe and then knocking them down.

This is the same trick Apostle Paul and Mohamad used with Judism. (In Mohammad's case it was both Judism and Christianity). Here is what is wrong with the present religion, here is why my new religion is better.

So the statement has a rhetorical trick in it. Let's examine it. It has two parts.

Rather than assuming that all men are inherently programmed to mistreat women

This statement actually appears to support men. By itself it does, until you look at the qualifier.

we believe that human interaction should be free from constraint.

So with this statement she negates the first statement, because she is implying that the current system is programming men to mistreat women.

And if you look at the majority of their statements they are very clear about what objectives they want to achieve but when it comes to how others benefit they only give vague feel good statements.

[–]NPK5667 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Yeah i guess you see her as really pushing this way of thinking. I see it more as her addressing the ridiculousness of feminism and saying this would be a more appropriate way to think.... Offering it as an alternative, but not really pushing it as a philosophy everyone should adopt.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Offering it as an alternative, but not really pushing it as a philosophy everyone should adopt.

This is the brilliance of her argument, she does not push it but makes it appear to be a choice.

If you attack directly, the other person gets their guard up. But by dropping subtle hints you gently nudge the other person in your direction.

This was the brilliance of Lincoln. Go read his emanciation proclamation. Did he actually free the slaves ?

His Gettysburg address is a masterpiece. Why ? Because it gets people's imaginations going but it is vague on details. The speech can be reused for any occasion ☺ Seriously.

Lincoln was an extremely good lawyer, and from the few court transcripts that have survived, his brilliance shines through.

TRPs advise is lift, improve yourself etc. It is good advice because normal human beings can not be word smiths like Churchill, Lincoln, Hitler etc.

[–]NPK5667 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If the brilliance of the argument is that she makes it appear as a choice, then how can you objectively claim she is pushing a new form of feminism with out assuming negative intent or deceit on her part? I only would assume such if i had seen previous behavior that indicated such, but this commentary of hers, being the only thing i have to judge her actions on, wouldnt make me automatically assume she was trying to push it rather than offering it as a viable alternative to a much more demented way of thinking.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 2 points3 points  (1 child)

then how can you objectively claim she is pushing a new form of feminism with out assuming negative intent or deceit on her part?

Touche ☺ I can't.

But saying all of this people will usually support agendas which they think benefits them. This will be a conscious or unconscious choice.

The majority of TRP is in denial about this TRP truth because they want to support an agenda which supports them. Why ? Because the majority of TRP is comprised of the 80%.

So for the majority of TRP it is better under the old rules. Female right away goes for the 80% of male losers. These guys try to hamster the female is better off.

Under feminism the female screws as many high value males as possible. If she is of the 80% of females, most of these males would not have committed to her anyway. Then after she is finished screwing around she finds a BB which she can do in the majority of cases. Or if that doesn't work she actually has to work or parasites money off the government ☺

So what is good for the majority of females is not good for the majority of males and vice versa.

So under its nice new wrapper humanism is basically feminism. Yes I can't prove what the woman's intent is because I am not a mind reader. But I can make pretty good assumptions what her intents are ☺

[–]EnragedParrot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While you can't "prove" anything, you can see through things like TruthSpeak and Powertalk to some degree - at least enough to know that what's being sold isn't the real intent.

There's a country-folk expression - "Whose ox is getting gored?" (who gains, who loses). Whenever a pundit/politician speaks, I always judge what they're saying through through this thought.

The concept of TruthSpeak is also useful - realizing that words/labels are often used to mean the opposite of what the words themselves denote, eg: in 1984, the agenda of the "Ministry of Love" was to foster loving behavior between people, it did this by fostering war, because the leaders determined that war made people more sympathetic to each other.

So while the name "Ministry of Love" inferred one thing, in practice it did another.

So when these women say "I'm a humanist", do you really think their definition of humanist is the same as one you or I would follow? Or is it just a TruthSpeak label they can use to differentiate themselves without actually being different?

This can help decipher they actual intent of the speaker, regardless of the words the use.

[–]theultimatewarriors 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know, sounds like they're speaking more at other women in feminism rather than towards males.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally I would find it very liberating to be able to fuck lots of different women and have someone else pay for it, but I have no managed to figure out how to do that

Bored wives and girlfriends. The boyfriend or husband can pay for her shit. I'm not paying for anything she gets, other than the resources required for me to make a load of man juice.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Damn wankalot, this is insightful as FUCK. I didn't catch that little sentence they put in there, but you did.

you're so right: If they were actually "humanist" and "didn't believe in biological determinism," they wouldn't have used gendered terms.

Same product, new wrapper.

But at least Marion Cotillard is a good looking wrapper.

[–]theultimatewarriors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only that, but they will claim problems are worse and worse to gain more resources. Seeing the fallout of rules to follow up every "sexual assault" case at a university is insane... Every penis on a marker board has to be followed up now.

All those resources, where do they come from, and who's getting paid? Not too hard to follow that one. Throw another bill on the back of the university student and if a male is given the job, cry foul and that they don't understand. Rinse wash and repeat ad infinum.

[–]Keninishna 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Call me paranoid but I think feminist have infiltrated trp and subtly promote feminist ideas wrapped in redpill philosophy. They can try to hide but no way they are going to make their shit not stink.

[–]1kick6 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Appealing to the male market is a step in the right direction. The reason feminism has been able to get away with...everything they've gotten away with is that men would still fuck them. Now that being a feminist has decreased the quality of man they're able to entertain, they're backing a way from the title. This is a market working properly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Feminists never seem to be the thin gorgeous types...that must be pure coincidence though! It's not as if being a thin attractive woman would somehow provide you with some sort of power over men especially betas...oh wait it totally does

[–]MrJugsMcBulge 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Precisely. The left does this re-branding all the time - as soon as enough people catch on to the blatant flaws in their philosophies, and said philosophy gets a bad name, they change the name. Marxist ideas fail spectacularly wherever they've been tried, so the left rebrands it as 'socialism'. 'Liberal' gets a bad reputation, so they start calling themselves 'progressives'. 'Feminist' gets a bad rep, so they start calling themselves 'humanists'. But the underlying failed philosophies never actually change.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the underlying failed philosophies never actually change.

This is the part I always argue. From 1000 BC till 1600 the average work week as over 60+ hours and the average person had to work 30 of these hours just to have enough to eat.

With the advent of the industrial and agricultural revolutions production increased rapidly. That means for a person to be able to get enough to eat, he only has to work 1 hour a day tops.

So there are two solutions. The first is cut the length of the work week this is what the smart guys back in the 1930s and 1940s thought would happen. Or find stupid jobs for the majority of people to do.

When doctors in the last went on strike the death rate dropped.

http://amazinghealth.com/death-rate-plummets-when-doctors-go-on-strike

For that matter matter times when the police went on strike, crime remained the same or dropped.

The reason is most of the time when people go to the doctor it is for BS reasons. Same reason when they call the cops.

If you have guys sitting around like in the middle East in refugee camps it becomes a breeding ground for terrorists

[–]DrewLol14 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I always thought we wanted actual equality but when women say they want the same thing and acknowledge feminism is hateful we... don't like that either?

[–]sir_wankalot_here 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Equal opportunity can exist, equality can not.

One of the areas where I diverge from the majority of TRP is the belief that a long time ago there was a mythical period when men where men and all was great. When this period was, no one was quite sure ☺ Was it under feudalism when the King ruled by divine right ? Was it under tribalism ? Or was it when we when we still lived in ape type packs ? If it is the last case. Alpha ape beat the shit out of all the beta apes. And if beta ape protested too much alpha ape killed beta ape or threw him out of the pack where he became omega ape.

This biggest BP myth that has always existed is for the benefit of society. That is the hamster alpha ape fed beta ape when he was bashing his head in.

Hateful ? This falls under the seven deadly sins falacy which was most likely formalized by early Christianity. This was an extremely smart way to attack non believers. First it kept beta believer under control because it suppressed his natural tendencies. But more importantly it gave a way to attack pagan religions and non believers.

So I am a generous pagan. You are an early Christian priest. Your attack will be well my intentions are bad, I am just being generous to show off. While when the Christian priest is being generous it is for the glory of Jesus. That his generosity attracts more converts has nothing to do with the matter ☺

[–]karmachameleo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't think you know what a humanist is. They usually are secular and not religious, and also LGBT advocates.

[–]EnragedParrot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's your definition (or perhaps mine).

Is that the definition these "reformed feminists" are using?

I doubt it.

[–]Redasshole -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Feminists say they are humanist which you can't say is a bad thing and then use it to lure you in feminist territory.

I know a lot of hot feminists though.

[–]OMFGTRIGGERED 35 points36 points  (3 children)

Real reason women are dropping the feminist label? Men began excluding feminists in the dating pool. Its easy, women want dates, cant find guys, notice guys hate feminists, claim you're not a feminist, ameritards go batshit insane over her, she still votes and believes in feminism though. These articles came out years ago, but even then its a lie. Their voting records stay the same no matter what they call themselves. Theyre feminist until a man fucks it out of her.

[–]BigDiggerNick74 26 points27 points  (1 child)

95% of attractive feminists claim to be feminists because it's the new 'trendy thing', especially in college.

Problem is that they still want male attention, and the Chads of the world are starting to see stories like mattress girl/UVA and saying "fuck that, feminists aren't worth the headache", so the only male attention most feminists get are from the neckbeard white knights.

Hence why attractive feminists barely last long. When they have to choose between (attractive) male attention and women's empowerment, they choose male attention.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 36 points37 points  (5 children)

Not a bad article. But the author misses some key ideas.

[Feminism] views the world through the narrow prism of gender and argues that women and men are inherently different.

Women and men ARE inherently different. There's more to distinguishing a man and woman than their external parts. Approaches to problem solving. Instincts when under duress or danger. Expression (or lack thereof) emotion. Men and women are different in almost every single way. That's what makes women women, and men men.

Which leads us to...

Our humanism is universal. We are not bothered with gender constraints and do not believe in biological determinism.

Biological determinism is not absolute, but to deny that it affects our decisions is naive.

Biological determinism is the entire reason why feminism is successful at all. If men weren't biologically pre-determined to be protective of women, then we wouldn't be giving feminists free shit every time they complained to us. Feminism would vanish over night.

Let's stop kidding ourselves here. There is no great war except for the one against nature. The ones who win have the power of resource generosity. And in that war, women aren't even combatants - they are beggars.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Let's stop kidding ourselves here. There is no great war except for the one against nature. The ones who win have the power of resource generosity. And in that war, women aren't even combatants - they are beggars.

That is the ultimate TRP truth.

[–]EnragedParrot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, THIS is gold.

Brilliantly put, SockPuppet. Will be quoting this.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

This is the one that stuck for me too. feminism doesn't argue that men and women are inherently different, it argues the opposite, that the genders are nothing but social constructs. Men are just girls in boy masks. This is why they make such a fuss about children's toys and 'role models'. They believe that anything a man can do a woman can do as well, because they are fundamentally the same. The reason that the 'patriarchy' exists is not because men are more powerful, but because they have been given undue privileges by society, which feminism seeks to reverse. Yes, it is totally batshit crazy and with no basis in history or biology, but that is where they are.

So when this author say that their humanism is 'not bothered by gender constraints' they are reaffirming the feminist ideology by another name, while falsely claiming that feminism is the opposite. Pure bait and switch.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*I disagree. Both the civil rights movement and unions were needed early on, because there was genuine oppression. Women were never oppressed in this way, they were protected. Psychology consistently shows that both men and women are biased towards women (to almost the same extent), and from an evolutionary point of view, the lower reproductive rate of females makes them the limiting resource, and hence the need to keep them away from danger. So throughout history it was men who took on the difficult and dangerous work, while women were 'oppressed' by taking on the lighter work in the home, looking after the children. Women were not so stupid as to want to work in the quarries (before explosives and JCBs, remember), or building roads and housing in all weathers, or sailing ships at risk of storms and pirates, or in the military fighting with swords and spears, and on and on.

It was men who built, maintain and defend civilization, and women were always given a special protected place within it. It is one of the characteristics of final stage empires (the final part of the Age of Affluence, shortly before their dissolution) that women start to want to do the things that men do, but only the easy tasks. So they want to become bureaucrats and politicians, or tax collectors. Nowadays it is all the media and office jobs. It is particularly so this time, because mechanisation and the rise of office work made things so much easier and less dangerous. You don't see women protesting to get more representation in quarries, or building roads, or laying pipelines; it is still men who maintain our society. During the decline of the Roman Empire, they said the same, that Rome rules the world, but women ruled Rome. Then it collapsed. There are other symptoms, such as the influx of foreigners (see migrant crisis in Europe now), and infighting (feminism is a virulent form of this, attacking white males, who are the very people keeping Western civilization going).

Feminism did nothing for this. Business wanted women into these jobs to keep wages down (just as they now want foreign workers), and in fact the major pieces of legislation took place before 2nd wave really got off the ground - as soon as the pill was developed. Feminists did not create machines; they did not invent the pill; they did not invent computers; they did not invent the modern world at all.

Nor was voting a great victory for feminism. Again, once we had universal suffrage for men it was inevitable (which is why almost everywhere women got the vote at the same time as all men). Not only because of that female bias, but because women are easier to scare into supporting big government, which they have consistently done. In the UK, they were given the vote because Lloyd George and his government were determined they should have it, in spite of the deeply unpopular Suffragette movement. If men didn't want them to have the vote they wouldn't have got it, no matter how much silly girls went around waving placards.

So feminism is simply a marker that Western civilization is now in decline and will collapse and be replaced before very long (we are already seeing other markers of this). Then things become tough again, and that is when the 'pendulum swings' and women go back to their traditional roles of their own volition. They were traditional for a reason.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (14 children)

But i don't understand. Why are fat whales with legbeards so afraid of rape?

[–]Rebikhan 37 points38 points  (1 child)

They need to say they are to feel attractive. To say "I'm afraid of rape" is to say "I'm so attractive that a man will risk life in prison just for the chance to have five minutes with me."

Rape is a legitimate fear, but the declaration of that fear often comes with ulterior motives.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It makes sense but it's hilariois at the same time.

[–]widec 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Because they can't run away as fast

[–]InAStateTRP 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For the same reason some rural Americans fear terrorists around the corner.

Makes them feel important.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 5 points6 points  (8 children)

Because you have not completely swallowed the pill ☺ Judism failed because it lacked a devil. The brilliance of Christianity and Islam was inventing a devil.

So the question to ask yourself is what purpose does the devil serve ? Think about that for a bit ☺

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Judism failed because it lacked a devil.

You have said this several times now, and it still makes no sense. What does 'failed' mean? Does it mean not grown to the extent that Christianity and Islam did? Well obviously, because the latter two are proselytising religions and Judaism isn't. It can't fail to have won a race it never entered in the first place. Does it mean that followers of Judaism have failed to make their way in the world? Obviously that is false. So I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

Anyway, have you read the Old Testament? With a god like that, who needs a devil?

[–]cosmicartery 2 points2 points [recovered]

A friend of the devil is a friend of mine

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

You really are bored aren't you?

How tf did judaism fail when jews are so prevalent in media and market industry?

[–]Rathadin 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Don't mistake Judaism with the racial Jewish group.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tell that to mass media # jesuischarlie supporters especially

[–]jsalathe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Humanism is just a new moniker for feminism. They changed the word because feminism now has bad connotations. Don't be fooled, it's the same thing.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The flair is there for people to filter. Use them properly

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Feminism is all about tone-policing the world, so why not tone-police itself to become more popular/palatable? Feminism depends on attention, image, support, spin.

Fairly recently, feminism (save for the radical idiots) has taken on more of an approachable spin: "You men, specifically, aren't evil. It's society! Society is privileged, and men aren't really doing anything bad, per se - they're just unaware and we're all about education and equality! Not man-bashing. We know you men are all for equality, too. You just haven't had to be women so you don't recognize some of our issues unless we educate you. Trust us!"

[–]razormachine 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I am with a certain humanist group and from my perspective there is a sudden influx of "humanist" woman that belong to two mayor groups.

First there are a lot of feminist woman's who had "hit the wall". They had passed the age where feminism had provided a lot of benefits for them, and they had came to age when feminism is "harming" them. They can't find a man because men of their age are seeking younger girls who are handing out pussy as if there is no tomorrow. Or they got married and have given birth to the sons (while some of them also became single). And now they find out just how much harm current feminist society is doing to their sons.

They are hypocrites because they only fight for something when they are on the receiving end. True humanist is going to fight for something even if it means he is going to lose a privilege, but make things more equal. But we still tolerate them because they do fight for equality (and in these times this means more rights for man). They would stab us in the back though, and we are aware of this.

Other group is feminist. The thing is that feminist movement has gone too far, and people look at feminists with more and more contempt. So some feminists think that they can just change the name from feminist to humanist and keep doing feminist things (essentially female interest group). They are not humanist at all, not only that they are exact opposite of humanists and we didn't make this group to be someone's white knight, so we regularly kick them out.

[–]2popthatpill 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Sounds like an evolutionary adaptation - they're changing their camouflage because of changes in the environment.

[–]GotHamm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's hard to hide a whale with camouflage.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Why are we listening to old celebrities who are looking for publicity? It's the same brand with a new label. They are seeking the coveted "victim" status, while claiming they are also liberated and Independent. Ignore them.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

What did you expect the Jezebellians were going to do? Say, "OMG! They're so right!" No, they're not going down without a fight, which includes eating each other to the bones. Women double down. It's a weird maladaptive strategy, but obviously they don't care. And btw, Marion is a freaking babe. Respekt.

[–]EnragedParrot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit Jezebel is the ultimate cesspool. Reddit's got NOTHING on that place.

Reason? Not permitted. Logic? harharhar.

Perfect name for that site - it's all crazy bitches...wait, that's kind of redundant.

I mean, they named the site after Jezebel, who:

"Jezebel persecuted the prophets of Yahweh, and fabricated false evidence of blasphemy against an innocent landowner who refused to sell his property to King Ahab, causing the landowner to be put to death"

What more need be said about those women?

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]RICCIedm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Humanism is the same shit : belief that humans are not animals, and therefore can have thoughts/actions policed, ignoring their biological emotions and thrives.

[–]IronMeltsinmyHands 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like the fact that Streep opted for the word "balance." the way I see it, you'll never equality between men and women, just more site) garbage to complain about will rise of you fight for "empowerment, and equality."

In a qualitative world, balance is what wins out. The genders are different, you need balance, simply because things will never be the same.

If you've been employed for some time, and you see a newbie making more than you, you have a civic duty, a moral duty, to speak up and address the issue. Regardless of whether either of you is a man or woman.

[–]monzzter221 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The issue here is that the view of feminists around these parts has become semi mainstream. The dislike for feminists you are seeing is a direct result of the red pill.

The only people that will cling to the moniker are people that have built their self identity around feminism, aka Jezebel cunts who have nothing substantial about their character and so fill that empty hole with ideology.

[–]thereddespair 2 points3 points  (0 children)

feminism these days for anybody with a sound mind i think equates to insanity

[–]crosenblum 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Any ism, is, a concretation of an idea, a vision, that may have no relationship to reality, but it sounds good or feel's good, so millions join the ism, to be one of the few, the elite, that are ism'ists.

To be strong, really strong, means being willing to be alone, think your own thoughts, live your own life without needing anyone's approval.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with the goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by eventually developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

Not all isms are dumb ideologies.

[–]crosenblum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes they are when they demand other people agree with them or become very pushy in pushing their ideas, thoughts, visions onto other people.

The idea is nice, but how it is applied is what I am referring to.

And just because an idea is popular does not make it a good or wise idea.

[–]MelodyMyst 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A little part of my brain cried bullshit in the first paragraph where it indicated Susan Sarandon has denounced her entire leftist life.

[–]makethemflaunt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I consider myself a masculinist, which is to say I support men in having a healthy view of themselves and their masculine qualities, despite all the fucked up hate speech that feminism preaches against men.

[–]faded_jester 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Once again.....ignore what women say and only look at their actions. They can call it whatever they want...the entitlement is the same, the attitude is the same, and the results are the same.

[–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points  (0 children)

because of how fucked up unpopular feminism really has become*

Clearly these actresses are intelligent or were attractive* to make millions of dollars.

Never understood why people always point to feminism as some sort of singular particular cause of failed gender relations. Feminism only a result of the greater problem.

[–]yummyluckycharms 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think its important to note that these actresses are playing both sides of the fence. When its convenient, they'll shroud themselves in the humanist cloak, and when its not, they'll throw it off to hoot and hollar their feminist streak.

Streep is the perfect example of this - remember her performance at the award ceremony regarding the wage gap?

[–]aa223 1 point2 points  (0 children)

do not believe in biological determinism

I mean you guys have to admit it is a start but they will learn that you generally can't escape what your biology tells you to do. But still it is a start. Otherwise, it kinda feels like clickbait for both feminists and us and well these sites who post their opinion pieces as well as the site that started it will get all those clicks.

Oh well, I can't wait to see the feminists turn into humanists and then they poison and take over what a humanist is because that is all they are good at doing. They just like to set fire to everything they touch so prepare yourselves for when being a humanist is synonymous with feminist.

[–]blkbullmentor 2 points2 points [recovered]

"Humanist" is no fucking better than a feminist. They think they're slick by giving feminism another "name."

This is feminism "lite." Don't fall for their shit. Nothing will change in regards to their behavior.

[–]EnragedParrot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Lite"?

No, it's just the same, with a nicer-sounding name, so it's even WORSE.

TruthSpeak people!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is BS. I consider myself a humanist and now they're gonna ruin that title for me.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These women get the benefits of feminism (because duh, they're female) and then they get the benefits of saying they don't believe in it.

Show me a woman fighting against alimony laws, fighting against the false rape culture and fighting for male family rights and I'll show you a woman who doesn't believe in feminism. Until then... I don't buy it. Words are just words. And I for one am not convinced by them.

[–]CattlesbyQCanine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All these cunts calling themselves "humanist" are some God damn liars.

They ain't protesting against any of the blatant double-standard shit men gotta face. These are women, here. Saying one thing but in reality supporting and living something else. When these Bitches put their money where their cocksuckers are, they'll begin to start to (you read that right) have a shred of credibility.

[–]LetsGoAllTheWhey 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Feminism at it's core is penis envy. Women will never accept the fact that we can write our name in the snow and they can't. Hell, they even sit down to pee when they hijack a men's restroom to use a urinal.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is exactly right. It is deep seated envy of the achievements of men throughout history. So they made up this 'history is the history of women's oppression' garbage to excuse their lack of contribution. So men gave them equal opportunities in the man's world of work and politics once men had also invented the pill (and mechanization and computers, to make a lot of work easy and comfortable). They then expected to do exactly as well as men, but surprise surprise they didn't. So then the story was that the 'patriarchy' was still acting and preventing them from contributing, without any evidence, of course. That is when we got all the affirmative action, because you have to give them extra support so they can prove they are 'equal'. Cloud cuckoo land.

[–]holzy444 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not to mention young stars like Shailene Woodley, Kaley Cuoco, and Kelly Clarkson have all definitively said they aren't feminists.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's simply because women realize if feminists get their way men are going to say fuck this and take away all their power and female privilege in society.

[–]makethemflaunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clearly these actresses are intelligent to make millions of dollars.

Um, no. The ability to act well does not necessarily confer intelligence, just for the record.

[–]makethemflaunt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminism as a movement has obviously deteriorated into man hate-speech, and that's sad.

[–]JakofClubs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

+1 for proper use of the word "hysterical"

[–]occupythekitchen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminism is a girl club, they can bs and complain about how rough they have by being a woman (I cant lock anyone down I even sucked and swallowed that guys load to see if hed come back and nothing)

Women enjoy so many privileges be it from courting to court of laws but yet they still want to complain. Its almost as if feminism and feminist dont know there are good and bad people out there. Anyone can see that we have videos of ISIS and cartels in mexico chopping heads, governments fighting unjust wars, and yet they focus on one negative of rape. rape is a disgusting act but lets be honest here its far from the worst thing that could happen. Sure youll be shaken up and maybe have psychological issues with trust and safety, but youll also realize the world is not a nice place. There are people looking to take advantage and abuse you at every corner, you cant childproof all of society and as a person and adult you have to be responsible for yourself. Society has no obligation to protect its citizens everywhere at any time only the obligation to guarantee the most security at most of the time.

Its just ridiculous what feminists expect in todays world, men are hunters and women are often in the menu of course some will take advantage of a drunk girl but she should keep that in mind when she goes out. Society owes nothing to them but yet it does all it can to enable their poor choices and when they dont like the consequence they lack the introspect to realize that society has already done everything it can to protect her and she is responsible for some of her own safety.

[–]mykonos_rm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know who else was a "humanist"? Henry VIII

[–]GMUwhat1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No serious chick with decent SMV identifies as a feminist. You'll notice the most hardcore feminists are all of the same archetype: obese and rainbow-colored dyke hair.

They're just trying to look edgy in hopes of getting their prince charming who is anti-patriarchal and anti-misogyny

[–]theultimatewarriors 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If we know anything, it's that women are even more brutal to each other when one breaks the rank and file. Hats off to those women for saying that knowing they'd take the heat. Hell hath no fury like an army of women scorned.

If anything, it's just blatantly obvious at this point that feminism doesn't seek equality in any sense, it seeks diverging the sexes more and more. You just have to do a small amount of observation and not take what's said in popular opinion for granted and see it for yourself. And you have to not give a shit when the loud ones come yelling at you for not accepting what they say at face value, like a grown child's temper tantrum.

[–]SouthernPetite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hats off to those women for saying that knowing they'd take the heat. Hell hath no fury like an army of women scorned.

The funny thing is, (for women) it's ridiculously easy to get the feminist ape off your back- you just have to put it down.

By this I mean that, in the FSM, women only have one tool in the toolbox to use against you, and that is the revocation of "friendship"/acceptance. If you opt not to invest in gaining or maintaining that relationship, then they can't touch you.

That said, the increasing levels of hysterics they reach as they clamor for anything they can think of to shame you back into the fold, but failing at every turn, is extremely amusing.

[–]NPK5667 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont get why everyone is casting this in such a negative light. Seemed fine to me. Shes not saying we should all become, or all women should become "humanists". shes saying that this is how they should think as opposed to strict feminism. Shes not really pushing this, at least thats what i took from it, but rather proposing it as an alternative.

[–]TRP VanguardYouDislikeMyOpinion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not surprised in the least that the only weapon feminists have is twitter.

[–]NotRAClST2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[–]1User-31f64a4e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It views the world through the narrow prism of gender and argues that women and men are inherently different. This is evident in the current feminist policing of sex, which rests on the assumption that all men are potential rapists and therefore women are doomed to live as victims. In this way, feminists refuse to believe in the potential for human beings to do good rather than bad, to have healthy sexual lives free of interfering rules and regulations.

And yet feminism also claims gender comes from culture, not inherent differences. That sort of illogical, incoherent bullshit is why (in addition to their aggressive bullying) people are distancing themselves.

[–]1Yakatonker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is patently false, feminism is laced with the themes of gynocentrism, hypergamy with the exception of it also being weaponized as an economic agenda to get women contributing as labor in the market. Feminism worked for women when it had a positive social economic spin to it, now that it doesn't women simply move onto the next turn of phrase, particularly women who's social utility/proof can't take the social hit, ei. elderly woman with no sexual or reproductive utility to men. Emma Watson didn't bat an eyelash rebranding the agenda because she suffers nothing for it because her reproductive youth is a near invincible wall of social proof that men fall over themselves for.

Feminism is here to stay, its littered with the inherent think of women, it also has commandeered their hive mentality to force them into the workplace to contribute economically rather then just be parasitic consumers. Men have also been spared immensely from a low quality of life because they're been economically downgraded in the dating market, ie forced to become a blue pilled MGTOW variant thanks to them being largely firewalled in the market. Most men are just slaves to their sexual urges, they'd throw themselves into economically risky endeavors for the sake of sexual release and all that it entails, ie. sexual supply(marriage), leverage for sex in marriage (children). Even the so called "alpha" is a slave if not more for conforming his entire existence towards consistent sexual release.

TLDR:A Woman calling themselves a humanist, instead of feminist is a matter of time. Atleast the ones that are willing to do their own thinking and is in touch with reality.

Woman aren't men, they don't think like us and not only that they're biological strategems run inherently counter to our own biological interests as men. We're competitors in this game of life, not some retarded monochromatic blend in the economy of our interests as separate and competitive sexes.

TLDR: Women don't give a shit about men, literally as they have their own inherent world view. Women will lie at face to extract men's utility and those women in low social economic positions will buckle far more easily then their high value, youthful counterparts who don't suffer any backlash for their support of feminism.

Getting tired of seeing these posts stipulating that women are "awaking", getting "smart", and or coming back to the fold. The fold by default is Gynocentrism, and most of the men here would happily be slaves to its systemic ravages yet again if only they could secure their addictive source of sexual release.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OMG the naivety is palpable. All this means is that identifying themselves as feminists is making their ultimate goal of stripping a man of his resources more difficult. Time to re brand. Nothing has changed.

[–]1nzgs[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's just a case of re-branding. The Left relies heavily on manipulating language and hijacking words to influence mainstream thought. When the word or label becomes toxic the adherents have to create new labels and distance themselves from the old one. Usually happens whenever the Left has a schism such as Marxists rebranding themselves as progressives/liberals/social democrats.

It's sad because humanism is a respectable world view, and I fear they are trying to hijack it the same way they are trying to hijack the atheist community.

[–]priestofdisorder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this makes much more sense, I'm pro equality even if women are deceptive feminism and SJWs are cancerous we need to give justice for EVERYONE.

[–]BleauGumms -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fuck 'em. They just want to jump ship because people think they're a bunch of idiots.

You boarded that ship, now sink with it bitches.

[–]ZioFascist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Feminists are jewish extremists mascarding around trying to destablize society.

[–]Theebenedetto -5 points-4 points  (7 children)

Why do people think its acceptable to attack feminist for no reason? I know it has a negative connotation but people go crazy insulting feminist. It's quite annoying. It's like people have a free pass to bash hippies, vegans, feminist, environmentalist, etc. Hate breeds more hate and spirals out of control.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

You apologists said the same thing about Islamists. Some groups only understand power

[–]Theebenedetto -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

Apologist? Bringing in Islamists? Not all Islamists are terrorist and not every feminist is bat shit crazy. Understand power? What?

[–]NPK5667 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Feminists are all crazy to even call themselves that. The name its self is probably one of the most sexist things ive ever heard lol. Youd have to be crazy not to realize that.

[–]Theebenedetto 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Labels in general are stupid. My view is to let people think what they want. All this wasted energy via social media bashing a group of people. Both sides live for the excitement. Filling a void in life. Yes, I'm filling a void too..trying to spread positivity without attacking a group because of a label. My main question was why people think they have a free pass to bash certain groups of people. You can dig in to anyone and find faults are views you don't agree with. Disagreement shouldn't equal all out bashing.

[–]EnragedParrot 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Nice framing benedetto, but I disagree with that frame.

"Why is it acceptable to attack feminists for no reason"

  1. Who said it's acceptable to attack feminists?

  2. Who said "for no reason"?

See, the thing is, you have these groups using a label to self-identify, then they take on stances, make statements indirectly or directly denigrating or attacking others.

Your pacifist response is to ignore these attacks?

[–]Theebenedetto 0 points1 point  (1 child)

yes, no, no, option B, yes