International Women's Day

[replayme]

why don't you read up on Briffault's Law?

OK. I will.

Women are not capable of unconditional love. And I'm sorry if that truth bomb is going to ruffle a few feathers.

Fur, in my case. And I still sense that's an academic opinion, as apposed to a quantifiable fact.

What about love for their children?

I do see that 'unconditional love' could be seen much like altruism. It's hard to ultimately quantify that anything is truly altruistic, or not (regardless of gender).

"Love" for chidren is different to "love" for a man.

And I don't believe in altruism. We are selfish creatures after all. Even the kindest of acts is borne out of selfish desires, as it makes us feel good.

[Mischief Maker]

I have no reason for spilling my guts out on the internet. It won 't change anything. Least of all what I believe.

That bad, huh? Any children involved?

[Skykid]

http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/ ... -ideology/

I'll just leave this here.

Best link of the thread.

Impressed that one man's tenacity and capacity for thought saved the taxpayer 56 Million Euros. Fifty-six-million!

I'm not a scientist, but when I think about institutions trying to justify Gender Research on the grounds of reinventing social sciences based around gender roles, I too would be curious as to how they would validate the actual 'science' part.

And unsurprisingly it turns out, when put to the test, they couldn't! A forty-year timewaste demolished by a simple intervention of logic.

How very droll.

[Acid King]

Read this if you are so inclined.

http://www.stickmanweekly.com/ReadersSu ... er5546.htm

From the linked article...

A few years ago, while arguing with my six sisters about my intentions to marry a Filipina half my age (marriage number 4 so I am a slow learner)

Nope, no issues there.

[nasty_wolverine]

Women are not capable of unconditional love. And I'm sorry if that truth bomb is going to ruffle a few feathers.

what, are all women like bunny?
big lebowski reference incase anyone missed.

[spadgy]

I'm so glad that none of the women I know - especially my partner - are anything like the women that live inside Replayme's head.

I'm the same!

Maybe replayme has been insanely unlucky with who he's met.

Maybe, of course, good, strong, funny excellent women are only likely to socialise with the types of people that hang out on the internet to talk about rank control, console mods and removing suicide batteries from shmup PCBs, and us shmup-loving anti-misogynists and feminists have a really skewed view, with replayme serving as an anomaly.

I'm joking, of course. Replayme is entitled to his opinions, but it seems far more people here are disgusted by misogyny, and that's a great reflection of the forum and the world (a pretty small dataset, I admit).

I like humans, regardless of their gender.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Er, no. No one here has a girlfriend. We're all White Knights, remember? Desperately trying to earn women's favour by gallantly defending their honour from replayme's truth-bombs.

[Bananamatic]

Er, no. No one here has a girlfriend

why would i let a succubus drain my mana

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Er, no. No one here has a girlfriend

why would i let a succubus drain my mana

"Love" for mana is different from "love" for a man.

[charlie chong]

lulz at reducing all women to one archetype..dude has obviously never come across the nurse archetype who i have found generally have unconditional love for everything ncluding animals,insects etc
if we had more people of the nurse archetype in positions of power then the world would be much better

[glitch]

if women can't really love, then i guess the only way for a man to be loved is to get it on with another man ( ._.)

[Mischief Maker]

I've reread this thread and I think people are being unfair to replayme. Meanwhile, replayme, you could have avoided this shitstorm if you'd been a little more judicious with your choice of words.

replayme definitely hit a nerve when he wrote that women can't "love," but if you look closely he put the word love in quotes and in the very next line clarified that he meant unconditional love.

I have to say I agree. Women are more attuned to social cues than men and it's more difficult for them to live in blissful denial when she knows damn well the relationship conditions are deteriorating. If she can't pretend, her love is conditional.

And really, if you think about it "unconditional" love is objectification. This woman is my trophy and I'll love her and want her around NO MATTER WHAT she does. She has NO POWER to change the situation.

His other point is that modern feminism is flawed because it does not acknowledge that power and responsibility are joined at the hip. I cannot tell you that I want clear skies tomorrow, then get angry at you because it's snowing, because you have no power over the weather and therefore it is not your responsibility.

If I'm interpreting correctly, when replayme says feminism wants women to have their cake and eat it too he's saying that feminism seeks to simultaneously empower women, but still leave full responsibility for their modern plight on men. Again, I would agree that that's correct. However I would say that this is a correctable flaw, not a sign that feminism is rotten to the core and should be abandoned entirely. Don't make "perfect" the enemy of "better."

Correct me if I'm wrong, replayme.

[Krooze L-Roy]

From the linked article...

A few years ago, while arguing with my six sisters about my intentions to marry a Filipina half my age (marriage number 4 so I am a slow learner)

Nope, no issues there.

On a side note, I'd say misogyny is an completely normal reaction to having any sort of relationship with a Filipina. I don't want to imply that all Filipinas are terrible people, but it's true, so I'm gonna go ahead and imply it.

[jonny5]

From the linked article...

A few years ago, while arguing with my six sisters about my intentions to marry a Filipina half my age (marriage number 4 so I am a slow learner)

Nope, no issues there.

On a side note, I'd say misogyny is an completely normal reaction to having any sort of relationship with a Filipina. I don't want to imply that all Filipinas are terrible people, but it's true, so I'm gonna go ahead and imply it.

2 racist comments in 2 minutes. You going for a record or something?

[Krooze L-Roy]

2 racist comments in 2 minutes. You going for a record or something?

I wouldn't say this one was racist. The other one, yeah. But a couple of my good pals are Filipino, and they tend to agree with me on this. It's more a cultural thing than a racial thing.

[moh]

if women can't really love, then i guess the only way for a man to be loved is to get it on with another man ( ._.)

pm me for vidz

[jpj]

quick question to replayme, by your logic how do things work with a lesbian relationship?

[spadgy]

On a side note, I'd say misogyny is an completely normal reaction to having any sort of relationship with a Filipina. I don't want to imply that all Filipinas are terrible people, but it's true, so I'm gonna go ahead and imply it.

Come on Krooze L-Roy. After your post in the other thread, you're really pushing it. Generalising on grounds of race or nationality is as uncool as sexism. If you're not being racist, you're really pushing the grey area there, and that's almost as dull as racism is abhorrent.

Honestly, sexism and racism in one thread. After all the homophobia stuff a while back, this is not what we need.

[Mortificator]

And really, if you think about it "unconditional" love is objectification. This woman is my trophy and I'll love her and want her around NO MATTER WHAT she does.

I think the only meaning of the conditional in "conditional love" and "unconditional love" that makes sense is if it refers to specific conditions outside the normal context of a relationship. There are plenty of things a person could do to someone that are so horrible they're virtually guaranteed to kill positive emotions - even your hypothetical man would feel a lot less love for his trophy wife if she fricasseed his scrotum and set him on fire - so I wouldn't label NOT doing those things as conditions.

[Krooze L-Roy]

On a side note, I'd say misogyny is an completely normal reaction to having any sort of relationship with a Filipina. I don't want to imply that all Filipinas are terrible people, but it's true, so I'm gonna go ahead and imply it.

Come on Krooze L-Roy. After your post in the other thread, you're really pushing it. Generalising on grounds of race or nationality is as uncool as sexism. If you're not being racist, you're really pushing the grey area there, and that's almost as dull as racism is abhorrent.

Honestly, sexism and racism in one thread. After all the homophobia stuff a while back, this is not what we need.

I'm obviously exaggerating with the "all" part, but talking about a specific group of people isn't sexist and racist just because that group belongs to a sex and a race. If it's okay to just break someone down to a list of component classifications, and then decry any criticism of them on the grounds of whatever "-ism" seems like the best tool for the job, I might remind you that your people (the British) have a long history of trying to silence and exclude my people (Catholics). Are you being bigoted toward me because I'm a Catholic, or just reacting to some shit I said? Maybe I'm just reacting to some shit I've experienced.

Filipinas are a singular enough group to justify their own wikipedia page, separate and distinct from the pages on women and Filipino people. Is Wikipedia generalizing, or are there legitimate political, historical, cultural reasons why that group - as a group - might exhibit some unique tendencies? Tendencies that I personally, as an individual with my own preferences and life experiences, might find incompatible with my own romantic life, enough to make a quick offhanded post on a message board.

[drauch]

I might remind you that your people (the British) have a long history of trying to silence and exclude my people (Catholics). Are you being bigoted toward me because I'm a Catholic, or just reacting to some shit I said? Maybe I'm just reacting to some shit I've experienced

Hahahaha. Keep digging that hole!

[trap15]

[Krooze L-Roy]

The anti-Catholic sentiment here is strong.

[nasty_wolverine]

I might remind you that your people (the British) have a long history of trying to silence and exclude my people (Catholics). Are you being bigoted toward me because I'm a Catholic, or just reacting to some shit I said? Maybe I'm just reacting to some shit I've experienced

this. is. what? i. dont. even. to say.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Is this officially the Masters of Romance™ forum already?

[Skykid]

I've reread this thread and I think people are being unfair to replayme. Meanwhile, replayme, you could have avoided this shitstorm if you'd been a little more judicious with your choice of words.

replayme definitely hit a nerve when he wrote that women can't "love," but if you look closely he put the word love in quotes and in the very next line clarified that he meant unconditional love.

I have to say I agree. Women are more attuned to social cues than men and it's more difficult for them to live in blissful denial when she knows damn well the relationship conditions are deteriorating. If she can't pretend, her love is conditional.

And really, if you think about it "unconditional" love is objectification. This woman is my trophy and I'll love her and want her around NO MATTER WHAT she does. She has NO POWER to change the situation.

His other point is that modern feminism is flawed because it does not acknowledge that power and responsibility are joined at the hip. I cannot tell you that I want clear skies tomorrow, then get angry at you because it's snowing, because you have no power over the weather and therefore it is not your responsibility.

If I'm interpreting correctly, when replayme says feminism wants women to have their cake and eat it too he's saying that feminism seeks to simultaneously empower women, but still leave full responsibility for their modern plight on men. Again, I would agree that that's correct. However I would say that this is a correctable flaw, not a sign that feminism is rotten to the core and should be abandoned entirely. Don't make "perfect" the enemy of "better."

Correct me if I'm wrong, replayme.

Another thought provoking counter-commentary, you're getting good at these.

Interested to hear the response. This is shaping up to be the best International Women's day ever.

[glitch]

aw, look at him go

if women can't really love, then i guess the only way for a man to be loved is to get it on with another man ( ._.)

pm me for vidz

(i uhm... might not quite be what you're looking for ^^;)

[replayme]

This video isn't pretty. But it highlights the grotesque actions which women will be able to get away with if "feminism" is taken to its logical conclusion, whereby women are taught to be street rats that can shout their mouth off and have little respect. With zero consequence.

http://youtu.be/kbRYTLzkd04

Personally, I'm on the side of the bus driver. If a woman is going to ask for "equality" and act like a man, then she should be treated as such. She has a brain after all, and has the capacity for reason. So why the double standards?

I don't go around fighting Mike Tyson or bouncers outside nightclubs, because I know what the consequences of my actions will be. So if a woman isn't prepared to have the shit kicked out of her, then she shouldn't provoke an attack.

After all, no-one defended Afghanistan, and saw the USA's attack as fully justified - even though Afghanistan is seen as the "weaker" nation.

Women want all the benefits of "equality" (when it suits them), but none of the pitfalls.

And I guess another reductivist argument is when women want equal opportunities in the workplace (with equal pay), but are happy to be commodified and act like the dumb little housewives (prancing around their kindergardens) when it suits them. And I'm like "why don't you just stop taking our jobs, and just go back to the kitchen"?

Feminism is deeply flawed. And I have zero respect for the movement and for the majority of its ideals.

And as for the notion of love, the following video illustrates how "love" is a commoditized transaction that isn't unconditional.

http://youtu.be/ouI-VeKTXcg

[trap15]

I think I'm gonna steal this GIF of yours, glitch. It's just too perfect.

Ah yes, and to protect against editing out the hole-digging:

This video isn't pretty. But it highlights the grotesque actions which women will be able to get away with if "feminism" is taken to its logical conclusion, whereby women are taught to be street rats that can shout their mouth off and have little respect. With zero consequence.

http://youtu.be/kbRYTLzkd04

Personally, I'm on the side of the bus driver. If a woman is going to ask for "equality" and act like a man, then she should be treated as such. She has a brain after all, and has the capacity for reason. So why the double standards?

I don't go around fighting Mike Tyson or bouncers outside nightclubs, because I know what the consequences of my actions will be. So if a woman isn't prepared to have the shit kicked out of her, then she shouldn't provoke an attack.

After all, no-one defended Afghanistan, and saw the USA's attack as fully justified - even though Afghanistan is seen as the "weaker" nation.

Women want all the benefits of "equality" (when it suits them), but none of the pitfalls.

And I guess another reductivist argument would be for when women want equal opportunities in the workplace (with equal pay), but are happy to be commodified and act like the dumb little housewives (prancing around their kindergardens) when it suits them. And I'm like "why don't you just stop taking out jobs, and go back to the kitchen"?

Feminism is deeply flawed. And I have zero respect for the movement and for the majority of its ideals.

[system11]

The anti-Catholic sentiment here is strong.

I think you'll find most people here don't give a shit which sky pixie you've selected and are just objecting to something you've typed.