The Matriarchy= Apocalypse

I'd like to note that I never gave my stamp of approval to this quiz

I just argued that, at least in the USA, the concept of privilege as it applies to race doesn't simply disappear because you're poor.

It's arguable and in fact I would agree with someone that said that if you were born dirt poor that you don't have much privilege compared to anyone, regardless of race. Yeah, I would agree. But again, I would still argue that being dirt poor and white is a much better life than dirt poor and black. If that's the case, there is still some semblance of privilege as it relates to race, even if poor.

It's very America focused but if y'all are doing it I also tried it.

79/100

Discrimination based on accent must apply to English speaking countries only? I've never heard about that.

Myesyats wrote:It's very America focused but if y'all are doing it I also tried it.

79/100

Discrimination based on accent must apply to English speaking countries only? I've never heard about that.

Seriously?

I’m from the “hillbilly” part of Denmark and I have some traces of that in my accent and people from Copenhagen when I lived there often made fun of how I spoke.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Freeza wrote:

CBarca wrote:That's true BC. If you're born dirt poor, even white, you're facing an upward battle in life.

You're still privileged compared to someone who is black but dirt poor, though

You’d also score extremely low in the quiz if that were the case and be deemed not privileged

i read the first 20 questions or so and they were all about how white you were... Doubt that would be the case

Edit: filled it out from the perspective of a poor, white, hetero, Christian, non addicted person and got the following:

You live with 65 out of 100 points of privilege.

You're quite privileged. You've had a few struggles, but overall your life has been far easier than most. This is not a bad thing, nor is it something to be ashamed of. But you should be aware of your advantages and work to help others who don't have them. Thank you for checking your privilege.

I must’ve entered something wrong then.

I don’t think it’s necessarily about being white the first questions.

The accent and the have you ever been in a room where you were the only one of your race?

I thought honestly most people had experienced that.

Freeza wrote:

Myesyats wrote:It's very America focused but if y'all are doing it I also tried it.

79/100

Discrimination based on accent must apply to English speaking countries only? I've never heard about that.

Seriously?

I’m from the “hillbilly” part of Denmark and I have some traces of that in my accent and people from Copenhagen when I lived there often made fun of how I spoke.

We also have regional dialects by which you recognize where someone is from but it's not really a laughing matter. It's more like "Oh I hear you're from the south" but not really ridiculing the person, if that makes sense.

We have to draw a line somewhere because not everything is "discrimination" in the negative sense of the word.

Just accept that people are different. Not everything can be equal and the same.

Noticed you and others constantly say "accept people are different. Not everyone can be the same"

That's not mutually exclusive with being aware of one's privilege. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't fight to try and make things equal. Hang in with me here, because I'll expand on that thought later in this post.

In 1950's America if you said "accept that people are different. Not everyone can be the same", you would be implying that black people should have a different waiting area at bus stations, different pools, and should be forced to sit at the back of the bus. Surely what we've got now is better?

It's completely possible to accept that people are different while fighting that people ought to have the same rights and in general shouldn't receive discriminatory treatment based on sex, race, gender identity, etc.

It's not about making sure everyone is the same. It's the corollary. It's about making sure people aren't discriminated against or receive unfair treatment. Which brings us back to the quiz -- it's just trying to get people to acknowledge their privilege, if you have any.

And acknowledging that you do have benefits to being white that a person of color doesn't have is a big step in acknowledging problems like systemic racism.

I should note though that I'm speaking from an American perspective as a person who lives in America.

Not sure whether or not this is legit, but I read that Kleenex have been forced to change the name of their "Mansize" tissues after receiving a lot of complaints from upset feminists.

They are called mansize because men have bigger penis than women IMO. Men need mansize Kleenex to wipe of the sperm from the wife's face.

Also calling your child "son" is sexist. What is this, are we living in the stone ages of 2010 again or what? Maybe the child wants to be a she, stop influencing his future decisions by labeling it "he".

Don't remind me of the "hen" culture. Part of me always suspected it would reach these parts, but I didn't expect it to happen so soon. I don't mind other people preferring not to disclose their sex, being born with both male and female organs, or even believing that there are hundreds of genders, but I'm never going to address someone as a "hen" just because they feel they're entitled to it... unless, not doing so means possibly losing my job. I'm not looking forward to the day when that becomes a likely scenario. I might just pack my bags, travel to my grand aunt in Florida and bask in my supposed white privilege

What kills me is that thimmy,unique, tmo, etc all seem to know much more about feminism, feminist culture, sjw culture, and all that than a self proclaimed feminist in McLewis as well as Freeza and I who seem to have a different, supposedly more sympathetic (to the cause) view than those persons listed.

Half the stuff you guys say I have to look up to make sure it's real (if it is real, which it isn't always). And this thread sure as hell doesn't get bumped with new information from any of us, most of the time.

Just something I noticed. Wonder why.

Probably because you and McLewis seem to have grown up in substantially more conservative environments, and have completely different, often opposing perspectives on these things. I think I'm pretty sympathetic towards women in general. Not so much in regard to "the cause", as I believe it has undoubtedly negative effects on the societies it impacts the most, despite it being championed by a relatively small group of people. As a teacher, my experience with "third wave feminism" is that a lot of young people here support it mainly because it's a new and popular thing that supposedly empowers women. Secondly, they don't know or care enough to know about the entirety of what they're actually supporting. Wanting women to be free from oppression from misogynistic, psychopathic or narcissistic men is one thing, but jumping on the all white men suck bandwagon won't do anything towards eradicating or changing those bad eggs. If anything, I believe it will only serve to provoke certain people into getting more negative views on women - which is ironically similar to how ISIS operate in recruiting members.

I have no problem admitting that I agree with, and support certain things that feminism stands for, or once stood for, but presently, as an organization or movement, there's simply too much irrational and hypocritical crap coming out of this sub-category of feminism that is rising to popularity, these days. From my personal experience, modern day feminists don't care to know about the finer details or consequences of the issues they're aggressively fighting for. Especially, not the younger ones. I think that's an issue when you consider how much influence they actually have on.. everyone. I don't know about the US, but they're actually being taken seriously here. I'm not a particularly big supporter of Jordan Peterson and I know you definitely aren't, but take a look at this recent clip from when he visited Scandinavia, and witness how one of Sweden's most influential politicians and feminists completely fails to grasp the simple concepts that he's explaining. Airheads like her actually have a lot of power and influence here.



I don't know what you've had to look up, but the fact that you aren't familiar with it, makes me assume that they haven't bothered you, just like your view on this entire gender debate seems alien to me. Not only do I live in one of the very most gender equal countries in the world, but I genuinely think we're moving in a direction where women will become substantially more privileged than men, despite our ironic emphasis on equality of outcome, which I absolutely don't agree with either. Rationally thinking, I would like to think that this third wave feminism movement and symphatizers here ends up being a trial and error project, and they regress to the mean eventually, but it doesn't look that way, as of right now.

As for Freeza, I can't speak for him, but Denmark is a very progressive country as well. They have a women only mosque, priests are required by law to wed gay people, and progressive politics is generally quite widespread in the country. I haven't personally met any danes who's view on gender equality has been quite as firmly planted on the side of feminism, or female sympathy if you will, as Freeza seems to be, but I would assume I share more similar experiences on this topic with him, than I do with you and McLewis.

Out of curiosity, what things have been said that weren't real? If you respond quickly, I'll look it up while I still have time to do so.

I have to admit that I haven't looked carefully into the whole phenomenon of feminism and how it truly stands globally nowadays, but in the last year I could sense a small yet strong wave of feminists in Romania and it also happened that I've watched (quite randomly) some YT videos and read blog articles on this subject.

I want to begin by briefly introducing you to how things stand here in Romania. Traditionally, the majority of our population is of orthodox religion and this means most people believe the man has the woman in his possession. The husband, somewhat owns the wife. Theoretically, the view is that men and women have the same rights, but practically, most women are still heavily oppressed from being independent and living by their own minds. This happens especially in the rural environment where there's less access to information and people believe the orthodox priests who are basically spreading the wrong ideas and lessons. In the urban places we're now in a much better place than ever, but there's still a lot of unresolved issues in the collective mind of our society.

This being said, I want to go on by stating that I've always supported the freedom of the individual, the freedom of choice and the need to have equal rights for everyone regardless of the gender or the race. At the same time, I am of the belief that generally speaking having laws is very good and of great importance to the society and that has been essentially proved over thousands of years of existence. A decent set of laws to protect us from indecent, aggressive or harmful behavior is obviously necessary. However, it clearly becomes problematic when the society's laws are one way or another against the human rights and the complete equality of its members. I think though, we've definitely reached a decent level when it comes to this in most parts of the globe, but the main thing is that in some of them people still don't act accordingly and that's when you start to feel even more irritated and unhopeful if you're part of the ostracized ones.

Now, I am pretty sure that in Romania there's too often physical abuse over women by men, misogyny, etc. But, and now I am getting to my point, there's this extremist behavior from some women, which is similar to that of many other groups which suffered collectively during the years, a behavior that I definitely not agree with. It's exactly that popular sub-category of feminism that @Thimmy was talking about. They are fighting too aggressively for some aspects and more often than not they end up by strongly wanting to incline the balance pretty much in their favor rather than keep it at the initially stated ideal point of equality. Without complicating it anymore, it's basically extremism and this wave, even if it's still small in our country, has remarkable influence on social media over the whole, generating a lot of violence because of the contrasting beliefs and ways of expression.

I certainly do not agree with those who are themselves fighting for inequality while stating they do it for equality. It's true that most of these people can't grasp basic concepts of humanism and sociology. I agree with the fact that they usually don't give a damn about the finer details or the consequences of their brutal activism against an entire larger group of people. It's not a long term solution. In my view it will just make it more problematic and will bring more and more social instability.

The above example with J.Peterson is conclusive in regard with how important it is to learn ourselves to filter information because many of the current influencers are not truly fitted to spread the best ways of thinking and it's valid pretty much regarding anything, not only when it comes to social debates. However, I have to say that I got the feeling there was a big barrier between them and that was the English language. The Swedish woman was clearly limited in this sense, which is unfair in a debate, but overall I also think she couldn't grasp much of what J.P. was trying to say.

Romania is slowly and not surely, but possibly transforming into a more progressive country after being strongly conservative for many years. I myself know a lot of young people who are open to newer social concepts and standards of politics. I hope women will no longer have to suffer from oppression or any kind of discrimination or abuse, but at the same time, I would surely not like to see them advocating too much for the wrong values and ideas, therefore generating more conflicts.

That's a good breakdown of how this is viewed in Romania, Vlad. Thanks for the insight. It's honestly not all that dissimilar for rural areas here in the States.

@Thimmy - I agree with your observation at the beginning of your post regarding CB and my views on feminism.

I think what needs to be remembered is that feminism is a reaction to millennia of oppression by men. It was never going to be completely civil. Some nastiness should be expected. Is some of it hopelessly obtuse? Sure. I could say the same about virtually any other movement. I'm not a feminist because I want to be a white knight to defend women. That would actually be the opposite. My upbringing and the influences around me put me on this path. It was natural and gradual. There was no epiphany. Just a culmination of observations of how women are treated by men in normal, everyday life and often how similar it is to how I imagine it was thousands of years ago.

It bemuses me that we men feel so attacked by this movement. So threatened by it. We do our best to deny that, but it shows in our words, our mindsets and our actions. Most of the time, especially these days, I just shut up and listen when discussing stuff, with both men and women. That's helped me more than anything else. I wish more men did that. Not every moment is one for action, power or control. I still think a lot men aren't really listening to women. They are too lost in their hostility and insecurity. This in turn just makes women more entrenched within the militant feminism that men hate so much. A very unfortunate cycle.

Well, it is quite similar because Orthodoxy is not much different from Catholicism, which if I am not mistaken is the most spread religion in states (or maybe the 2nd). I’d say they are basically identical when it comes to men-women relationship.

Also, I completely agree with the collective trauma and the strong reactions of a certain group after very long periods of suffering and oppression. Always thought it is important to remember this before judging certain behaviors of some people.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/australian-cafes-18-percent-man-tax-would-have-to-be-even-larger-in-the-us.html



This makes so much sense. Now, if VivastPauli can take one for the team and receive 50 lashes of a whip to compensate for how men behaved during the 50s, we're going in the right direction.




Australia sounds like a jungle full of dangerous men.

I don't believe I've ever advocated revenge as a proper counter to injustice.

I don't believe anyone ever said that was a pre-requisite to being whipped

Well, didn't you suggest whipping "to compensate"?

Oh, yeah.. I meant to write redeem

I don't believe in the original sin.
I do believe in learning from the past's mistakes.

Maybe politically influential, far leftists will learn from their mistakes if males who identify as female athletes, end up alienating biological women entirely from sports, as a direct result of progressive politics. This has already become an issue in Australia, Canada and the US.

Joe Rogan is very invested in this issue. A voice of reason in this mad world.

They're bullying girls into thinking that it's right. Bending the definition of equality in all possible ways

Thimmy wrote:Maybe politically influential, far leftists will learn from their mistakes if males who identify as female athletes, end up alienating biological women entirely from sports, as a direct result of progressive politics. This has already become an issue in Australia, Canada and the US.

I can oppose homophobia, be for social democracy, and still think that 300 pound burly men shouldn't get to beat on 90 pound girls just because they took hormones for 18 months.

They don't necessarily even need to take hormones. In many cases, all it requires is for someone to identify themselves as a particular gender. Whether or not they choose to make the physical transition, is up to them. Naturally, a line should be drawn here, but such details seem to often become an afterthought in the glorious mission to strive for the betterment of mankind and all of it's sub-categories of people at the speed of light. Why plan ahead when one can be ahead? Why does no one complain about a person with a penis in the women's showers? Because they're not transphobic

I'm so lucky to have a gf of many years with whom I live together. Dating these days is really dangerous. Can't trust anyone dude.